| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I see something on that film which looks rather like flashes, smoke and debris. The fact that it is not seen on on any other film gives me severe doubts about it, as do the random pattern of light flashes apparently seen all over the face of the tower.
Why do you suppose that the anyone bringing the towers down by controlled demolition, who would be clever enough to somehow plant explosives invisibly all over an occupied building, and somehow prevent them from being destroyed by the aircraft impacts or subsequent fires, would set off explosions in advance of the start of collapse that have no obervable effects either at the time or when the collapse wave reaches that particular area? |
But if genuine, I presume you would admit "inside job"? You would have to, surely? And I don't know why you would expect another camera to be pointing at that side of the tower at that time.
Why do you keep on and on about why it was done? Do you not only need hard evidence that it happened? It has to also make sense to Bushwacker's limited knowledge of how to demolish 110 story towers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I see something on that film which looks rather like flashes, smoke and debris. The fact that it is not seen on on any other film gives me severe doubts about it, as do the random pattern of light flashes apparently seen all over the face of the tower.
Why do you suppose that the anyone bringing the towers down by controlled demolition, who would be clever enough to somehow plant explosives invisibly all over an occupied building, and somehow prevent them from being destroyed by the aircraft impacts or subsequent fires, would set off explosions in advance of the start of collapse that have no obervable effects either at the time or when the collapse wave reaches that particular area? |
But if genuine, I presume you would admit "inside job"? You would have to, surely? And I don't know why you would expect another camera to be pointing at that side of the tower at that time.
Why do you keep on and on about why it was done? Do you not only need hard evidence that it happened? It has to also make sense to Bushwacker's limited knowledge of how to demolish 110 story towers? |
A film like this, with some effects that might be one thing or another, is far from hard evidence. As you say, you have no idea where it came from, who took it, or why it has only now surfaced after six years. There were cameras all around the towers, covering it from all angles and yet this is the only one which recorded these effects, apparently. It could be faked, it could be light reflections, it could be anything.
I question why it was done because your claim is that it is evidence of a CD. If so, it has to be consistent with the collapse that took place, and since it is not, I wondered if you had any possible explanation of why that should be. Yes, I have limited knowledge of how to demolish 110 storey towers, and unless you are hiding your light under a bushel, so do you. Those who do have extensive knowledge of demolition say that there are no signs of demolition and to their knowledge, it would be impossible for explosives on the impact floors to survive the impacts and fires.
So, let us look at the evidence:
The case for controlled demolition
A belief amongst those with no knowledge of demolition that the towers fell too quickly for a natural collapse.
Puffs of smoke and dust which are claimed to be demolition squibs, but which appear at isolated locations and have no observable effect on the structure at any point.
Noises of explosions, not unexpected in fires, but again no observable effects.
This film, showing as no other does, some visual effects that could be a variety of things, and which you cannot link to the process of controlled demolition.
The case against controlled demolition
The belief amongst those who have experience that there was no such demolition.
The calculations of scientists and engineers that show a natural collapse would indeed have taken approximately the time observed.
An absence of any physical evidence of demolition on the steelwork examined by volunteer engineers after the event.
The impossibility of explosives surviving on the impact floors.
The practical impossibility of planting demolition charges and remote control detonators all over an occupied building and concealing them so that they were unobserved.
Conclusion
CD was not required for the towers to collapse as they did, and there is no evidence for CD that withstands examination. CD is therefore very unlikely but, as always for a negative, cannot actually be disproved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | So, let us look at the evidence:
The case for controlled demolition
A belief amongst those with no knowledge of demolition that the towers fell too quickly for a natural collapse.
Puffs of smoke and dust which are claimed to be demolition squibs, but which appear at isolated locations and have no observable effect on the structure at any point.
Noises of explosions, not unexpected in fires, but again no observable effects.
This film, showing as no other does, some visual effects that could be a variety of things, and which you cannot link to the process of controlled demolition.
The case against controlled demolition
The belief amongst those who have experience that there was no such demolition.
The calculations of scientists and engineers that show a natural collapse would indeed have taken approximately the time observed.
An absence of any physical evidence of demolition on the steelwork examined by volunteer engineers after the event.
The impossibility of explosives surviving on the impact floors.
The practical impossibility of planting demolition charges and remote control detonators all over an occupied building and concealing them so that they were unobserved.
Conclusion
CD was not required for the towers to collapse as they did, and there is no evidence for CD that withstands examination. CD is therefore very unlikely but, as always for a negative, cannot actually be disproved. |
Oh come on Bushwacker, so what did Jowenko say when he saw the WTC7 footage?
Jowenko WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh come on, James, we were talking about the towers, and what did Jowenko think about them? He thought they fell naturally and there was no question of controlled demolition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Oh come on, James, we were talking about the towers, and what did Jowenko think about them? He thought they fell naturally and there was no question of controlled demolition. |
Really?
Are you ignoring WTC7 because you claim we are talking about the towers only, which we are not, or because you know Jowenko is correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Oh come on, James, we were talking about the towers, and what did Jowenko think about them? He thought they fell naturally and there was no question of controlled demolition. |
Really?
Are you ignoring WTC7 because you claim we are talking about the towers only, which we are not, or because you know Jowenko is correct? |
James, James, you are being ridiculous, we were talking about the towers because KP50 posted a video of the towers, which we discussed. Look at my posting which you quote, and you will see I mention only the towers.
Danny Jowenko is a stubborn man who will not be shifted from the view he first formed on being shown a video of WTC7 that it was demolished, and he will also not be shifted from his view that the towers were not demolished, so what is your point in quoting him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
Jowenko, an expert in controlled demolition and owner of a very large demolition company states categorically in the film that WTC7 was a demoltion.
You suggested, in a rather open, matter of fact, way that the towers fell in a manner that only non-demolition experts could suggest was due to controlled demolition. Since WTC7 was a tower in its own right, you cannot accuse me of making a silly error.
Not that your waffle concerns me. I'm more interested in why you feel it necessary to squirm out of the WTC7 issue and pretend it doesn't matter when clearly, absolutely, it does.
If my arguments carry little weight compared to those of NIST as you so often imply, what makes your reasons for the collapse of WTC7 any better than those given by a demolition expert? I notice how you bow to ridicule when describing Jowenko. Debunkers always do when they are frustrated with their lack of credible evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Bushwacker,
Jowenko, an expert in controlled demolition and owner of a very large demolition company states categorically in the film that WTC7 was a demoltion.
You suggested, in a rather open, matter of fact, way that the towers fell in a manner that only non-demolition experts could suggest was due to controlled demolition. Since WTC7 was a tower in its own right, you cannot accuse me of making a silly error.
Not that your waffle concerns me. I'm more interested in why you feel it necessary to squirm out of the WTC7 issue and pretend it doesn't matter when clearly, absolutely, it does.
If my arguments carry little weight compared to those of NIST as you so often imply, what makes your reasons for the collapse of WTC7 any better than those given by a demolition expert? I notice how you bow to ridicule when describing Jowenko. Debunkers always do when they are frustrated with their lack of credible evidence. |
You are making a silly error, my discussion with KP50 clearly concerned the twin towers, arising as it did from a video of the twin towers and effects on that video. Why you want to try to pretend it included WTC7, only you know, but it is really rather pathetic.
I am quite happy to state that WTC7 fell in a way which to both expert and non-expert alike resembled controlled demolition. However, the time it took to fall is often misrepresented by truthers, who ignore the intial failure of the penthouse. I have not ridiculed Jowenko, I have said he is stubborn. He is certain the collapse of WTC7 was controlled demolition, he is also certain the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was not, which you prefer to ignore. I think he may have been unwise to give such categoric opinions initially on the basis of a video alone.
I have given no reasons for the collapse of WTC7, I am content to await the NIST report, but I do note that it was heavily damaged and burnt unattended for seven hours, and that it was expected to collapse by the FDNY, on the basis of their experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: |
But if genuine, I presume you would admit "inside job"? You would have to, surely? And I don't know why you would expect another camera to be pointing at that side of the tower at that time.
|
A film like this, with some effects that might be one thing or another, is far from hard evidence. As you say, you have no idea where it came from, who took it, or why it has only now surfaced after six years. There were cameras all around the towers, covering it from all angles and yet this is the only one which recorded these effects, apparently. It could be faked, it could be light reflections, it could be anything.
|
Way to avoid the question BW. Let's presume it is genuine. Does it prove an inside job?
(I won't dilute my question my responding to your other ramblings in this post) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: |
But if genuine, I presume you would admit "inside job"? You would have to, surely? And I don't know why you would expect another camera to be pointing at that side of the tower at that time.
|
A film like this, with some effects that might be one thing or another, is far from hard evidence. As you say, you have no idea where it came from, who took it, or why it has only now surfaced after six years. There were cameras all around the towers, covering it from all angles and yet this is the only one which recorded these effects, apparently. It could be faked, it could be light reflections, it could be anything.
|
Way to avoid the question BW. Let's presume it is genuine. Does it prove an inside job?
(I won't dilute my question my responding to your other ramblings in this post) |
I am not avoiding the question, but it seems you have difficulty understanding the answer, so let us try again.
Even if the video were as shot on the day, it would be far from proving an inside job, firstly because there is no means of knowing what those effects observed on the video actually were. It is the same situation as with the videos used to try to prove that the planes fired missiles, there is what might be a flash or might be something else, and of course the videos used by the no-planers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: |
But if genuine, I presume you would admit "inside job"? You would have to, surely? And I don't know why you would expect another camera to be pointing at that side of the tower at that time.
|
A film like this, with some effects that might be one thing or another, is far from hard evidence. As you say, you have no idea where it came from, who took it, or why it has only now surfaced after six years. There were cameras all around the towers, covering it from all angles and yet this is the only one which recorded these effects, apparently. It could be faked, it could be light reflections, it could be anything.
|
Way to avoid the question BW. Let's presume it is genuine. Does it prove an inside job?
(I won't dilute my question my responding to your other ramblings in this post) |
I am not avoiding the question, but it seems you have difficulty understanding the answer, so let us try again.
Even if the video were as shot on the day, it would be far from proving an inside job, firstly because there is no means of knowing what those effects observed on the video actually were. It is the same situation as with the videos used to try to prove that the planes fired missiles, there is what might be a flash or might be something else, and of course the videos used by the no-planers. |
But certainly strong evidence of an explosion unrelated to the fires overhead - which backs up the multitude of eye-witness accounts of explosions inside the towers. Unless you want to take on the job of proving what did explode multiple times due to the fires in the towers?
You see the smoke, you see the falling debris. What could have caused that?
What could have caused the ground to shake before the towers collapsed (and they did shake before the collapse as you well know, it wasn't the debris hitting the ground).
What could have caused the massive underground temperatures?
Unless you can provide an adequate explanation for these observable events, then it looks like an inside job to me.
Just how much video/audio/eyewitness evidence can you discount? It starts to look a bit ridiculous after a while .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, of course it looks like an inside job to you, you start with that belief and look for any evidence which can possibly be stretched to support it, while ignoring the mountain of evidence which supports the official version of events.
You do not like the fact that things explode in fires, but nevertheless that is a fact that you really ought to accept, unless you really are determined to close your eyes to reality. It is also well documented that many other things were reported as explosions, the plane hitting the South tower was heard as an explosion in the North tower for instance, and debris and bodies hitting the pavement. What you have not got is any instance of an explosion that was shown to be a bomb, there is no indication in the seismic record that bombs went off and you also lack any explanation of why bombs should be set off in advance of the general collapse.
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
The fires went on burning underground for a long time, naturally the debris pile was hot at the lower levels. Underground fires have been known to burn for years. Thermite, however, burns very quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Yes, of course it looks like an inside job to you, you start with that belief and look for any evidence which can possibly be stretched to support it, while ignoring the mountain of evidence which supports the official version of events.
|
No actually that's yourself you are describing - you ignore any evidence that contradicts the official story. Sure there is evidence to support the official story, but a mountain of evidence that cannot be explained by it.
| Bushwacker wrote: | You do not like the fact that things explode in fires, but nevertheless that is a fact that you really ought to accept, unless you really are determined to close your eyes to reality. It is also well documented that many other things were reported as explosions, the plane hitting the South tower was heard as an explosion in the North tower for instance, and debris and bodies hitting the pavement. What you have not got is any instance of an explosion that was shown to be a bomb, there is no indication in the seismic record that bombs went off and you also lack any explanation of why bombs should be set off in advance of the general collapse.
|
Where are these fires you speak of? Above level 80 in both towers. Where are the explosions reported from? Way, way below those levels. So what is it that explodes due to fires a distance away? Come on, show me your evidence.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers. |
This assumes that all the timings are correct I presume, where's your proof? If you are 20-25 seconds out that fits perfectly with the observed shaking of 2 separate fixed cameras and the eye-witnesses who watched the towers fall after feeling the ground shake.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The fires went on burning underground for a long time, naturally the debris pile was hot at the lower levels. Underground fires have been known to burn for years. Thermite, however, burns very quickly. |
How does a fire increase in temperature though? Massively? Such that molten metal was seen to be running? Explain how that happens please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't be shy, produce the mountain of evidence that cannot be explained by the official story, nothing has been seen yet.
Did you read what I wrote about the explosions? There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions and no reason to set off demolition charges in advance. No evidence there.
Yes, the seismic record assumes the timings are correct, these were carried out by scientists, who measure things accurately. I'll prefer them to your unnamed witness, if you don't mind.
Ever hear tell of the Iron Age, iron being made using charcoal as fuel? Not that there is any evidence of molten steel, the molten metal reported could just as easily be aluminium or lead, and it is all second hand reports. The picture of firemen looking into a fiery pit has been shown to have been faked by Steven Jones, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Don't be shy, produce the mountain of evidence that cannot be explained by the official story, nothing has been seen yet.
Did you read what I wrote about the explosions? There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions and no reason to set off demolition charges in advance. No evidence there. |
Were there electrical explosions from transformers? Or are you just guessing that part? What about the explosion shown in the film I posted? Looks like evidence to me. What about the evidence of massive damage in the basements that could not have been produced by airline fuel (and I know that one has been done to death but it is still evidence in my view).
You always slip the "no reason to set off demolition charges in advance". Now as you do not think this is an inside job, how can you claim to know the method much less the motive for the demolition? You just make yourself look silly.
| Quote: | | Yes, the seismic record assumes the timings are correct, these were carried out by scientists, who measure things accurately. I'll prefer them to your unnamed witness, if you don't mind. |
How do they measure accurately the time that the towers collapsed? Check what time the TV clock says? Or check the time against the seismic evidence and make the match that way? I am not doubting the seismologists, I am doubting the linking of the time of the collapse.
Why do so many witnesses tell of feeling the ground shake and looking up and seeing the tower come down? Why do 2 fixed cameras shake precisely 12 seconds before the collapse? Coincidence? All looks like evidence to me.
| Quote: | | Ever hear tell of the Iron Age, iron being made using charcoal as fuel? Not that there is any evidence of molten steel, the molten metal reported could just as easily be aluminium or lead, and it is all second hand reports. The picture of firemen looking into a fiery pit has been shown to have been faked by Steven Jones, of course. |
You said steel, I said metal. So are you denying that the temperatures were massive underground with your irrelevant talk of charcoal? There are many, many reports of very high temperatures months after 9/11. As your first response was so feeble, maybe you can come up with a reason for such high temperatures given the relatively moderate office fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Don't be shy, produce the mountain of evidence that cannot be explained by the official story, nothing has been seen yet.
Did you read what I wrote about the explosions? There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions and no reason to set off demolition charges in advance. No evidence there. |
Were there electrical explosions from transformers? Or are you just guessing that part? |
No, I was quoting from firemen who thought that transformers might be exploding. I know you don't like to be reminded that things explode in fires, but unfortunately for you, it happens to be true
| Quote: | | What about the explosion shown in the film I posted? Looks like evidence to me. What about the evidence of massive damage in the basements that could not have been produced by airline fuel (and I know that one has been done to death but it is still evidence in my view). |
Is it an explosion? You have no idea, but of course anything looks like evidence to you. What you need is evidence that is irrefutable, and you have not got a single scrap of it
| Quote: | | You always slip the "no reason to set off demolition charges in advance". Now as you do not think this is an inside job, how can you claim to know the method much less the motive for the demolition? You just make yourself look silly. |
You are not very good at this logic business, are you? You claim that the sounds of explosions means that there were demolition charges going off. I cannot think of any reason why your conspirators should set off demolition charges in advance, so I give you the opportunity to explain why you think they should. Obviously you cannot think of any reason either. OK, but it leaves your theory looking pretty weak.
| Quote: | | Yes, the seismic record assumes the timings are correct, these were carried out by scientists, who measure things accurately. I'll prefer them to your unnamed witness, if you don't mind. |
| KP50 wrote: | | How do they measure accurately the time that the towers collapsed? Check what time the TV clock says? Or check the time against the seismic evidence and make the match that way? I am not doubting the seismologists, I am doubting the linking of the time of the collapse. |
See NIST Progress Report June 2004 appendix H for a full description of how event timings were arrived at
| KP50 wrote: | | Why do so many witnesses tell of feeling the ground shake and looking up and seeing the tower come down? Why do 2 fixed cameras shake precisely 12 seconds before the collapse? Coincidence? All looks like evidence to me. |
Do they? If you are right, it sounds to me as though they felt the initial collapse of the impact floors, looked up and saw the towers come down. Your story of fixed cameras shaking sounds very unlikely in a demolition scenario. You reckon that explosive charges destroyed the structural columns but the building hung in the air without any support for 12 seconds? sounds more like a Tom and Jerry cartoon to me
| Quote: | | Ever hear tell of the Iron Age, iron being made using charcoal as fuel? Not that there is any evidence of molten steel, the molten metal reported could just as easily be aluminium or lead, and it is all second hand reports. The picture of firemen looking into a fiery pit has been shown to have been faked by Steven Jones, of course. |
| KP50 wrote: | | You said steel, I said metal. So are you denying that the temperatures were massive underground with your irrelevant talk of charcoal? There are many, many reports of very high temperatures months after 9/11. As your first response was so feeble, maybe you can come up with a reason for such high temperatures given the relatively moderate office fire. |
OK, the Iron Age confuses you, but you will find that burning material compacted together reaches much higher temperatures. You then have the possibility of reaction between the iron and the steam from sprayed on water, and the sulfidation of the iron from the gypsum in the rubble, another exothermic reaction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Don't be shy, produce the mountain of evidence that cannot be explained by the official story, nothing has been seen yet.
Did you read what I wrote about the explosions? There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions and no reason to set off demolition charges in advance. No evidence there. |
Were there electrical explosions from transformers? Or are you just guessing that part? |
No, I was quoting from firemen who thought that transformers might be exploding. I know you don't like to be reminded that things explode in fires, but unfortunately for you, it happens to be true |
And as I constantly tire of pointing out to you, just saying "things explode in fires" is not a counter-argument to a multitude of explosions being reported, heard and felt lower down the towers.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Quote: | | What about the explosion shown in the film I posted? Looks like evidence to me. What about the evidence of massive damage in the basements that could not have been produced by airline fuel (and I know that one has been done to death but it is still evidence in my view). |
Is it an explosion? You have no idea, but of course anything looks like evidence to you. What you need is evidence that is irrefutable, and you have not got a single scrap of it
|
It looks like an explosion (debris and smoke are seen), the lights are clrealy visible and match the lights that eye-witnesses claim to see when the towers fall. It certainly looks like something that cannot be explained away as being caused by a plane impact or a fire up above. Otherwise you would have come up with an explanation instead of waffling on about evidence.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Quote: | | You always slip the "no reason to set off demolition charges in advance". Now as you do not think this is an inside job, how can you claim to know the method much less the motive for the demolition? You just make yourself look silly. |
You are not very good at this logic business, are you? You claim that the sounds of explosions means that there were demolition charges going off. I cannot think of any reason why your conspirators should set off demolition charges in advance, so I give you the opportunity to explain why you think they should. Obviously you cannot think of any reason either. OK, but it leaves your theory looking pretty weak. |
Unlike yourself, I try to look at all of the evidence and find an explanation for it. Now if my motive was to destroy a tower while making it look like a top down collapse, setting off all the charges at the same time would make it obvious it was a demolition, even to people like yourself. So much of the weakening would have to be done beforehand, taking advantage of events such as the plane strikes and hoping that all other explosions could be explained away by apologists with the phrase "things explode in fires".
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Quote: | | Ever hear tell of the Iron Age, iron being made using charcoal as fuel? Not that there is any evidence of molten steel, the molten metal reported could just as easily be aluminium or lead, and it is all second hand reports. The picture of firemen looking into a fiery pit has been shown to have been faked by Steven Jones, of course. |
| KP50 wrote: | | You said steel, I said metal. So are you denying that the temperatures were massive underground with your irrelevant talk of charcoal? There are many, many reports of very high temperatures months after 9/11. As your first response was so feeble, maybe you can come up with a reason for such high temperatures given the relatively moderate office fire. |
OK, the Iron Age confuses you, but you will find that burning material compacted together reaches much higher temperatures. You then have the possibility of reaction between the iron and the steam from sprayed on water, and the sulfidation of the iron from the gypsum in the rubble, another exothermic reaction. |
You could have saved yourself some typing and just say that you have no idea. Now I know you like to wander the internet looking for good information as you struggle a little at times (I still remember you stating that the debris was so widespread because it all hit the ground and bounced outwards like a plate hitting the ground) so how about a better explanation of these massive temperatures? Or is this irrefutable evidence of something taking place in the basement to bring down 3 towers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So much of the weakening would have to be done beforehand, taking advantage of events such as the plane strikes and hoping that all other explosions could be explained away by apologists with the phrase "things explode in fires". |
Ridiculous. There were tens of thousands of people in the building. Its absurd enough that you think that these charges could have been set without anyone noticing. Now you think they set off all those charges, enough to pre-weaken all 110 floors of each building, with thousands of people around, and all anyone noticed was some loud noises here and there?
I don't understand why you can make up absurd explanations and then sneer when someone points out the obvious, e.g. things do explode in fires, even without explosives.
Troof is so 2007. Better find a new hobby.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Don't be shy, produce the mountain of evidence that cannot be explained by the official story, nothing has been seen yet.
Did you read what I wrote about the explosions? There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions and no reason to set off demolition charges in advance. No evidence there. |
Were there electrical explosions from transformers? Or are you just guessing that part? |
No, I was quoting from firemen who thought that transformers might be exploding. I know you don't like to be reminded that things explode in fires, but unfortunately for you, it happens to be true |
And as I constantly tire of pointing out to you, just saying "things explode in fires" is not a counter-argument to a multitude of explosions being reported, heard and felt lower down the towers.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Quote: | | What about the explosion shown in the film I posted? Looks like evidence to me. What about the evidence of massive damage in the basements that could not have been produced by airline fuel (and I know that one has been done to death but it is still evidence in my view). |
Is it an explosion? You have no idea, but of course anything looks like evidence to you. What you need is evidence that is irrefutable, and you have not got a single scrap of it
|
It looks like an explosion (debris and smoke are seen), the lights are clrealy visible and match the lights that eye-witnesses claim to see when the towers fall. It certainly looks like something that cannot be explained away as being caused by a plane impact or a fire up above. Otherwise you would have come up with an explanation instead of waffling on about evidence.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Quote: | | You always slip the "no reason to set off demolition charges in advance". Now as you do not think this is an inside job, how can you claim to know the method much less the motive for the demolition? You just make yourself look silly. |
You are not very good at this logic business, are you? You claim that the sounds of explosions means that there were demolition charges going off. I cannot think of any reason why your conspirators should set off demolition charges in advance, so I give you the opportunity to explain why you think they should. Obviously you cannot think of any reason either. OK, but it leaves your theory looking pretty weak. |
Unlike yourself, I try to look at all of the evidence and find an explanation for it. Now if my motive was to destroy a tower while making it look like a top down collapse, setting off all the charges at the same time would make it obvious it was a demolition, even to people like yourself. So much of the weakening would have to be done beforehand, taking advantage of events such as the plane strikes and hoping that all other explosions could be explained away by apologists with the phrase "things explode in fires".
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Quote: | | Ever hear tell of the Iron Age, iron being made using charcoal as fuel? Not that there is any evidence of molten steel, the molten metal reported could just as easily be aluminium or lead, and it is all second hand reports. The picture of firemen looking into a fiery pit has been shown to have been faked by Steven Jones, of course. |
| KP50 wrote: | | You said steel, I said metal. So are you denying that the temperatures were massive underground with your irrelevant talk of charcoal? There are many, many reports of very high temperatures months after 9/11. As your first response was so feeble, maybe you can come up with a reason for such high temperatures given the relatively moderate office fire. |
OK, the Iron Age confuses you, but you will find that burning material compacted together reaches much higher temperatures. You then have the possibility of reaction between the iron and the steam from sprayed on water, and the sulfidation of the iron from the gypsum in the rubble, another exothermic reaction. |
You could have saved yourself some typing and just say that you have no idea. Now I know you like to wander the internet looking for good information as you struggle a little at times (I still remember you stating that the debris was so widespread because it all hit the ground and bounced outwards like a plate hitting the ground) so how about a better explanation of these massive temperatures? Or is this irrefutable evidence of something taking place in the basement to bring down 3 towers? |
You know, I am really getting bored with your inability to hold more than one thought at a time. Go back to what I said before: "There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions."
Yes, you like the film and think it shows something, saying it again and again makes it no more convincing than it was the first time we discussed it.
Even from a troofer, your explanation for early explosions is unusually stupid, 0 out of 10. I know it is difficult but do try to come up with something not quite so self-evidently absurd.
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
Are you really contending that something took place in the basement that caused a top-down collapse of the towers? Do you want to think about that again as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Falling plates? That must have been me.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
|
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=58436&highlight=#584 36
(I am still waiting for your reply)
Bushwacker wrote:
Some has undoubtedly disappeared into dust clouds, particularly the gypsum wall board, some of the concrete as well, but broken chunks of conrete and smashed up office furnishings would hardly be very noticeable under all that steel.
By the time all this weight of the collapsed upper stories reached the final lower 20 stories, moving at near freefall speed there would have been enormous momentum, and I suppose the debris was likely to shoot out sideways rather than stopping dead. Drop a plate on to a hard kitchen floor and shards will shoot out all over the floor, you will not get a simple pile of broken pieces where it hit. [Do not try this at home unless you own the plate and are prepared to clear up afterwards]
KP50 wrote:
So the plate theory is the best you have for the incredible dispersal of debris? There is little evidence that any of the 110 stories hit the ground around the site of the former towers, it looks mainly to be the remains of the lowest above ground stories.
Bushwacker wrote:
With incredible energy involved, an incredible dispersal of debris does not seem incredible to me and I am quite pleased with the plate analogy.
KP50 wrote:
So the incredible mass was simultaneously bearing down with the force of gravity whilst also dispersing widely - somehow managing not to congregate around the area of the towers - but still destroying the whole tower with the incredible mass that was by now widely spread. Pretty clever building I'd have to say.
Bushwacker wrote:
Why do you assume that the incredible mass was dispersed widely before reaching the bottom of the towers? That sounds most unlikely. As unlikely as a large part of the debris disappearing as you seem to be saying.
KP50 wrote:
Sorry I thought that was what you meant - so most of it made it to the ground and then dispersed widely - in a smashing plate style? Just trying to clarify this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | You know, I am really getting bored with your inability to hold more than one thought at a time. Go back to what I said before: "There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions."
Yes, you like the film and think it shows something, saying it again and again makes it no more convincing than it was the first time we discussed it.
Even from a troofer, your explanation for early explosions is unusually stupid, 0 out of 10. I know it is difficult but do try to come up with something not quite so self-evidently absurd.
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
Are you really contending that something took place in the basement that caused a top-down collapse of the towers? Do you want to think about that again as well? |
Falling back on insults now? Tut tut.
You have posted a huge number of times on this board, you must have some explanation for the massive temperatures under the rubble pile. You can even use Popular Mechanics if NIST doesn't have the answer. We are talking temperatures hot enough to make metal run as a liquid according to many witnesses - and still there 5 months later.
Last edited by KP50 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
|
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=58436&highlight=#584 36
(I am still waiting for your reply)
Bushwacker wrote:
Some has undoubtedly disappeared into dust clouds, particularly the gypsum wall board, some of the concrete as well, but broken chunks of conrete and smashed up office furnishings would hardly be very noticeable under all that steel.
By the time all this weight of the collapsed upper stories reached the final lower 20 stories, moving at near freefall speed there would have been enormous momentum, and I suppose the debris was likely to shoot out sideways rather than stopping dead. Drop a plate on to a hard kitchen floor and shards will shoot out all over the floor, you will not get a simple pile of broken pieces where it hit. [Do not try this at home unless you own the plate and are prepared to clear up afterwards]
KP50 wrote:
So the plate theory is the best you have for the incredible dispersal of debris? There is little evidence that any of the 110 stories hit the ground around the site of the former towers, it looks mainly to be the remains of the lowest above ground stories.
Bushwacker wrote:
With incredible energy involved, an incredible dispersal of debris does not seem incredible to me and I am quite pleased with the plate analogy.
KP50 wrote:
So the incredible mass was simultaneously bearing down with the force of gravity whilst also dispersing widely - somehow managing not to congregate around the area of the towers - but still destroying the whole tower with the incredible mass that was by now widely spread. Pretty clever building I'd have to say.
Bushwacker wrote:
Why do you assume that the incredible mass was dispersed widely before reaching the bottom of the towers? That sounds most unlikely. As unlikely as a large part of the debris disappearing as you seem to be saying.
KP50 wrote:
Sorry I thought that was what you meant - so most of it made it to the ground and then dispersed widely - in a smashing plate style? Just trying to clarify this point. |
Ah, so I can claim credit, not Pepik, thanks!
Did you ever work out what point you were trying to make? Was it a post in support of beam weapons disintegrating the towers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | You know, I am really getting bored with your inability to hold more than one thought at a time. Go back to what I said before: "There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions."
Yes, you like the film and think it shows something, saying it again and again makes it no more convincing than it was the first time we discussed it.
Even from a troofer, your explanation for early explosions is unusually stupid, 0 out of 10. I know it is difficult but do try to come up with something not quite so self-evidently absurd.
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
Are you really contending that something took place in the basement that caused a top-down collapse of the towers? Do you want to think about that again as well? |
Falling back on insults now? Tut tut.
You have posted a huge number of times on this board, you must have some explanation for the massive temperatures under the rubble pile. You can even use Popular Mechanics if NIST doesn't have the answer. We are talking temperatures hot enough to make metal run as a liquid according to many witnesses - and still there 5 months later. |
Yes, I have explanations for the temperature under the rubble pile, which I have given to you. If you find it awkward that underground fires can burn for a long time and generate considerable temperatures, in the same way you find it awkward that things explode in fires, that is your problem.
I am sorry if you are insulted by being asked if you really believe something happening in the basement caused a top down collapse, but that is what you implied.
Your many witnesses to molten metal in the basement actually come down to very few, others were reporting what they had been told, it is mostly hearsay. I am not saying there was no molten metal, there are some eye witnesses, but no evidence of the metal involved, which could be aluminium or lead. What is strange is why this should be thought of as any indication of why the towers collapsed, since thermite is an incendiary and would have burned off immediately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I see something on that film which looks rather like flashes, smoke and debris. The fact that it is not seen on on any other film gives me severe doubts about it |
they do appear on more than just that one film, so that claim is wrong.
however they do not appear in all footage, and sometimes you will get two shots of the same angle or even two different versions of the exact same footage and they will appear in one and not the other.
this fact in my opinon makes it very hard to know if the flashes are real or not without other evidence pointing to their exsistence.
witness accounts may well reveal the truth about the flashes being real or fabricated as false evidence to either a) feul conspiracy theorys b) fake evidence to support 9/11 inside job, i know for a fact misleading tatics are used in the NPT/ TV fakery evidence so ruling that scenerio out of anyother evidence is not an option.
however if it is seen on video as well as firsthand accounts of flashes then that would make the flashes a near certainity as something which occured.
what they were we could all guess till the cows come home, but they are evidence of possible charges in the buildings if they can be backed up with other evidence. that dos'nt mean the evidence is correct however.
since when did evidence mean it has been proven so? it simply means 'reason to believe' untill proven otherwise, reason to believe constitutes a theory NOT a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory is based on NO reason to even believe it ie: NO EVIDENCE to support the claim what so ever. where CD is concerned people base their suspicions on reasons to believe it, ie: evidence.
anyone argueing that it is'nt evidence is in pure denial if it can be backed up by firsthand accounts. it is evidence wether it is correct or not only a new investigastion that actually investigates the scenerio will know or prove it either way. it the same when somebody is arrested, the police have evidence or reason to believe untill proven otherwise, hence a court of law to consider the case, but the evidence the police have dos'nt mean their evidence is correct. but seeing as though no offical investigastion into a controlled demoltion scenerio has been done people are left to weigh up what evidence is more compelling whilst considering the information from both sides of the arguement.
they certainly have no reason to believe anyone here on their say so, it just boils down to people looking for themselves.
it aint CD simply because KP50 says so, but at the same time it dos'nt mean it was'nt simply because bushwacker says so.
anyone who is honest would simply say investigate. then we will know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
|
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=58436&highlight=#584 36
(I am still waiting for your reply)
Bushwacker wrote:
Some has undoubtedly disappeared into dust clouds, particularly the gypsum wall board, some of the concrete as well, but broken chunks of conrete and smashed up office furnishings would hardly be very noticeable under all that steel.
By the time all this weight of the collapsed upper stories reached the final lower 20 stories, moving at near freefall speed there would have been enormous momentum, and I suppose the debris was likely to shoot out sideways rather than stopping dead. Drop a plate on to a hard kitchen floor and shards will shoot out all over the floor, you will not get a simple pile of broken pieces where it hit. [Do not try this at home unless you own the plate and are prepared to clear up afterwards]
KP50 wrote:
So the plate theory is the best you have for the incredible dispersal of debris? There is little evidence that any of the 110 stories hit the ground around the site of the former towers, it looks mainly to be the remains of the lowest above ground stories.
Bushwacker wrote:
With incredible energy involved, an incredible dispersal of debris does not seem incredible to me and I am quite pleased with the plate analogy.
KP50 wrote:
So the incredible mass was simultaneously bearing down with the force of gravity whilst also dispersing widely - somehow managing not to congregate around the area of the towers - but still destroying the whole tower with the incredible mass that was by now widely spread. Pretty clever building I'd have to say.
Bushwacker wrote:
Why do you assume that the incredible mass was dispersed widely before reaching the bottom of the towers? That sounds most unlikely. As unlikely as a large part of the debris disappearing as you seem to be saying.
KP50 wrote:
Sorry I thought that was what you meant - so most of it made it to the ground and then dispersed widely - in a smashing plate style? Just trying to clarify this point. |
Ah, so I can claim credit, not Pepik, thanks!
Did you ever work out what point you were trying to make? Was it a post in support of beam weapons disintegrating the towers? |
I was wondering why when the towers were meant to drive down on the floors below, reducing them to dust - the debris seemed to be scattered far and wide as per the overhead shots. You implied that the debris did hit the ground around the base and then bounced to its final resting place somewhat like a plate shattering.
Seems like you do neither memory nor logic very well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | So much of the weakening would have to be done beforehand, taking advantage of events such as the plane strikes and hoping that all other explosions could be explained away by apologists with the phrase "things explode in fires". |
Ridiculous. There were tens of thousands of people in the building. Its absurd enough that you think that these charges could have been set without anyone noticing. Now you think they set off all those charges, enough to pre-weaken all 110 floors of each building, with thousands of people around, and all anyone noticed was some loud noises here and there?
I don't understand why you can make up absurd explanations and then sneer when someone points out the obvious, e.g. things do explode in fires, even without explosives.
Troof is so 2007. Better find a new hobby. |
I liked it better when you used to pop up from time to time with "show me a single structural engineer or architect who believes the towers were demolished". Whatever happened to that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | You know, I am really getting bored with your inability to hold more than one thought at a time. Go back to what I said before: "There were sounds of explosions from the South tower being hit, from falling debris, falling bodies, electrical explosions from transformers, stuff falling down the lift shafts, no end of things that were not on the fire floors, but no seismic indication of explosions."
Yes, you like the film and think it shows something, saying it again and again makes it no more convincing than it was the first time we discussed it.
Even from a troofer, your explanation for early explosions is unusually stupid, 0 out of 10. I know it is difficult but do try to come up with something not quite so self-evidently absurd.
You remember me using the falling plate analogy do you? Not me, Sunshine, your memory must be as bad as your logic!
Are you really contending that something took place in the basement that caused a top-down collapse of the towers? Do you want to think about that again as well? |
Falling back on insults now? Tut tut.
You have posted a huge number of times on this board, you must have some explanation for the massive temperatures under the rubble pile. You can even use Popular Mechanics if NIST doesn't have the answer. We are talking temperatures hot enough to make metal run as a liquid according to many witnesses - and still there 5 months later. |
Yes, I have explanations for the temperature under the rubble pile, which I have given to you. If you find it awkward that underground fires can burn for a long time and generate considerable temperatures, in the same way you find it awkward that things explode in fires, that is your problem.
I am sorry if you are insulted by being asked if you really believe something happening in the basement caused a top down collapse, but that is what you implied.
Your many witnesses to molten metal in the basement actually come down to very few, others were reporting what they had been told, it is mostly hearsay. I am not saying there was no molten metal, there are some eye witnesses, but no evidence of the metal involved, which could be aluminium or lead. What is strange is why this should be thought of as any indication of why the towers collapsed, since thermite is an incendiary and would have burned off immediately. |
Yes I know underground fires can burn for a long time - they do and obviously did in this case. The key word is underground. How did an office fire high above the ground turn itself into a raging inferno underground? Your painfully poor explanation might satisfy yourself in this bizarre world that you inhabit but is rather laughable in the real world which is why I gave you the chance to come up with something better.
Now if thermite was used, it would have caused a huge temperature in the metal that it was slicing - I presume, I'm not an expert. How exactly is that meant to burn off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I liked it better when you used to pop up from time to time with "show me a single structural engineer or architect who believes the towers were demolished". Whatever happened to that? |
Classic evasion. How exactly did hundreds if not thousands of explosives go off inside a building with tens of thousands of people in it without anyone noticing anything except a few loud noises?. | Quote: | | How did an office fire high above the ground turn itself into a raging inferno underground? |
What a moronic question. The building collapsed. | Quote: | | Now if thermite was used, it would have caused a huge temperature in the metal that it was slicing - I presume, I'm not an expert. How exactly is that meant to burn off? |
Again, moronic. Fires go out eventually. Next question?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | I liked it better when you used to pop up from time to time with "show me a single structural engineer or architect who believes the towers were demolished". Whatever happened to that? |
Classic evasion. How exactly did hundreds if not thousands of explosives go off inside a building with tens of thousands of people in it without anyone noticing anything except a few loud noises?. | Quote: | | How did an office fire high above the ground turn itself into a raging inferno underground? |
What a moronic question. The building collapsed. | Quote: | | Now if thermite was used, it would have caused a huge temperature in the metal that it was slicing - I presume, I'm not an expert. How exactly is that meant to burn off? |
Again, moronic. Fires go out eventually. Next question? |
debunking is simply denial of anything that contridicts that persons belief by the sounds of things.
"it was like this" "no it was'nt" "yes it was" "no it was'nt" blah blah.
add in a few insults inorder to put the person down to somehow make your arguement seem more credible followed by conspriacy theory talk, then anyone viewing this will automatically presume the person who uses such tactics is more informed and has a strong case won't they?
| Quote: | How did an office fire high above the ground turn itself into a raging inferno underground?
What a moronic question. The building collapsed. |
that answer is so simple yet so silly it avoids the issue all together.
if fire is at the top and the rubble is collecting underneath on the way down, how does the top of the rubble pile move to the bottom of the rubble pile?
even if all the debris were smashed to small pieces allowing the top parts to work there way underneath, with all the dust and fine particles etc the fire would become starved and extinguish, a bit like throwing sand on a fire.
the question was a valid one which you try to simplify and add some kind of tag to, to make it seem like a question that should'nt be asked.
i can only assume its due to you not having a proper explaination, therefore simplifying it and adding a moronic tag to it helps avoid the question and discourage others from asking it even though the question has not been answered but rather avoided.
| Quote: | | What a moronic question. The building collapsed. |
your just stating the obvious, but it dos'nt answer the question or prove or explain how it is possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
