• 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.

Top-Down Demolition

CHF said:
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

He isn't on your side, kid. Live with it.
Click to expand...

He did not retract the part that the towers could be demolished with a small amount of explosives. Live with that.
 
rebel said:
He did not retract the part that the towers could be demolished with a small amount of explosives. Live with that.
Click to expand...

Answer my questions. Where are your peer reviewed papers about CD by experts? What are their credentials?
 
rebel said:
"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Click to expand...

What part of that are you having trouble with?

He does NOT think there was a demolition. End. Of. Friggin. Story.

I'm STILL waiting for that paper written by your experts....
 
rebel said:
He did not retract the part that the towers could be demolished with a small amount of explosives. Live with that.
Click to expand...

Fine. Tell him to write a paper detailing his theory.
 
We Read You

:rolleyes:
rebel said:
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Tammy. The towers were blown to kingdom ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ come. I don't care if it was top down, bottom up or in a figure of eight.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we get the idea: You don't care if it was impossible. You want to believe that it happened, so goddammit!--It happened! None of those pesky facts for you, nosiree!
 
Even if it was a demolition, explosive charges would have to been perfectly placed where the planes crashed into the towers so that no one would notice the oddities of the collapse.
 
Rebel said:

"Ron, while we are talking about Jowenko, why don't you get him on your show? Or, indeed, any expert. A debate on such issues between tour guides and filmmakers can only be so useful."


I have invited several "experts." Hoffman punked out at the last minute. Fetzer wanted a plane ticket, which our budget won't permit (our budget doesn't cover my parking expenses). Berger doesn't visit NYC very often and Barrett doesn't respond. Tarpley expressed an interest in the show and ask me to send him links to Mark's debate with the Loose Change boys. I haven't heard from him in over a week. If you can persuade someone you regard highly to appear on Hardfire, I'll do my best.
 
Last edited:
rebel said:
No idea. Van Romero seemed to think it would only take a small amount, and he didn't retract that part of the statement.

If you think none were used then it isn't a great stretch to imagine some being used is it?
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

You are again providing a service by illustrating a deviation from true skepticism.

An inference from your statement might be: Anything is possible. Example, using your statement as a model:

If you think an invisibility-cloaked giant tyrannosaur did not knock down the Twin Towers, then it isn't a great stretch to imagine such a creature did knock it down, is it?

In true skepticism, anything is not possible. There are logistical limitations, scientific limitations, probability limitations and other limiting factors.
 
pomeroo said:
Rebel said:

"Ron, while we are talking about Jowenko, why don't you get him on your show? Or, indeed, any expert. A debate on such issues between tour guides and filmmakers can only be so useful."


I have invited several "experts." Hoffman punked out at the last minute. Fetzer wanted a plane ticket, which our budget won't permit (our budget doesn't cover my parking expenses). Berger doesn't visit NYC very often and Barrett doesn't respond. Tarpley expressed an interest in the show and ask me to send him links to the Mark's debate with the Loose Change boys. I haven't heard from him in over a week. If you can persuade someone you regard highly to appear on Hardfire, I'll do my best.
Click to expand...

Excuses, excuses. They dont even have to be in the studio.

I would like to see Webster Tarpley on there though.
 
Rebel I see you cannot provide any peer reviewed papers for your experts or their credentials. Figures. You are a CT, and never can you provide proof when asked.
 
Welcome to ignore.

Should I break out the champaign now that I have made rebels "ignore list". Is there a badge for this, because I will certainly feel "ignored" if i do not get one.

Since he can no longer read what I am saying, I would just like to express that i feel Rebel, like most of his 911blogger/LCforum/911researcher buddies, is a paranoid lunatic with very little, if any common sense or intellect. I wouldnt be rude enough to express this to him directly, but now that I know he will not see it, I simply must express myself on this point.

I will give him credit for doing what I always tell parents to do, who complain about what is on TV these days...if you dont like it, or it frightens you...turn off the TV...

God bless 9/11 truther "fascism" and all that it has become. Long live the LC Forum Banning Policy, and the wonderful use of the JREF Forum "ignore" list.

TAM:)
 
rebel said:
Excuses, excuses. They dont even have to be in the studio.

I would like to see Webster Tarpley on there though.
Click to expand...
Guarantee: Ron is NOT making excuses.

If Hardfire is designed as a face-to-face debate, then of course they DO have to be in the studio. Face-to-face debates create their own unique dynamics, and are the purest form of debate. This is how debates were done 35,000 years ago, and it's refreshing to see that nothing - with all our technology - can match the effect of face-to-face communication.

Explain why Tarpley is more qualified to speak on 9/11 than Mark Roberts.
 
Yup, still no expert-written reports from rebel.

I reckon the kid's about 17 years old.
 
On the side...note at present:

Current members on the site = 84
Current guests on the site = 265

TAM:)
 
Invitation

rebel said:
Ronald Weak, why do you feel the need to run back to JREF with a copy n paste of every exchange you have at 911blogger?

It's a bit like the child that comes home from school and says "Mommy look what I drawed for you at school today"
Click to expand...


Actually, this is a fair question. I'd like to prod you people into visiting JREF and asking questions. Debates need not be acrimonious. If you bring to this forum a spirit of honest inquiry, you will be met with courtesy. You can raise any issue that interests you and take your best shot. If you attempt to pass yourself off as someone who doesn't require any specific knowledge to out-shout experts in their fields, you can expect your bubble to be pricked.
 
Last edited:
The Demon's Head said:
To be fair, give rebel a chance and ample time to respond.

;)
Click to expand...

I suppose I should, but it's not like he might present such a paper. We all know there are none for him to present.

My request was only made in order to see whether rebel will a) admit he has none, or b) simply ignore the request.
 
Van Romero Rejects Woowoo

rebel said:
Van Romero said a small amount of explosives could be used in strategic points, and he is an expert.

He also said they fell too methodically to be collapses but then came his incredible change of heart ten days later.
Click to expand...


Whenever I post Van Romero's statement complaining that the conspiracy liars have twisted his words, that they've concocted nonsense about the government "getting to him," that the whole business is an albatross around his neck, for some reason the subject of Van Romero is dropped.

His "incredible" change of heart is a figment of your imagination. Do you want to continue blustering that he really doesn't mean what he says he means? What is the source of your knowledge?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom