tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
While waving hands chanting i cannot hear you.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
While waving hands chanting i cannot hear you.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
One man"s piece or crap is another"s valuable compost"
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Come on, LC. Prove you are not full of fail. I know you can do it.
LastChild's argument:
1. here is a YouTube clip with an explosion on it, he doesn't know when or where it was filmed
2. Unless you can find another clip with the same explosion on it, that proves that some cameras can't pick up demolition explosions - because there are other clips filmed at the same time and in a nearby location that don't have explosions on. He knows this even though:
a. he doesn't know the time and location of any of the clips
b. the explosion isn't a demolition explosion; and
c. he can't even be sure that the explosion noise isn't faked.
3. This, in turn, means that every single camera pointed at the twin towers during their collapse failed to pick up any demolition explosions even though:
a. demotion explosives go off before the collapse starts; and
b. demolition explosions are much louder than the collapse that results from them.
LastChild's attempts to explain all of this here and in the previous thread have shown that he doesn't understand condenser/dynamic mics, pickup patterns, noise gates, compression, limiting, wind noise reduction or the acoustic dampening properties of materials. His statements and arguments have, over and over, been shown to be nothing short of ludicrous. This doesn't stop him though, he comes back with more and more ridiculous gambits, spiced up with name-calling, and ignores all the previous rebuttals.
Now he is sure that if we can't find a clip that meets his nonsensical challenge he will have "won". I suspect such a victory will only be in his mind and suggest we don't indulge him further.
1. here is a YouTube clip with an explosion on it, he doesn't know when or where it was filmed
2. Unless you can find another clip with the same explosion on it, that proves that some cameras can't pick up demolition explosions - because there are other clips filmed at the same time and in a nearby location that don't have explosions on. He knows this even though:
a. he doesn't know the time and location of any of the clips
b. the explosion isn't a demolition explosion; and
c. he can't even be sure that the explosion noise isn't faked.
3. This, in turn, means that every single camera pointed at the twin towers during their collapse failed to pick up any demolition explosions even though:
a. demotion explosives go off before the collapse starts; and
b. demolition explosions are much louder than the collapse that results from them.
LastChild's attempts to explain all of this here and in the previous thread have shown that he doesn't understand condenser/dynamic mics, pickup patterns, noise gates, compression, limiting, wind noise reduction or the acoustic dampening properties of materials. His statements and arguments have, over and over, been shown to be nothing short of ludicrous. This doesn't stop him though, he comes back with more and more ridiculous gambits, spiced up with name-calling, and ignores all the previous rebuttals.
Now he is sure that if we can't find a clip that meets his nonsensical challenge he will have "won". I suspect such a victory will only be in his mind and suggest we don't indulge him further.
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
peteweaver
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,006
It isn't the only other choice though is it Lastchild.
The only workable explaination involves structural damage, fire, maleable metal getting hot, and weakening, its tensile strength becomes unable to support its load, fails, bending moment occurs. Load falls, floors below, not designed to recieve such a shock, and are unable to arrest the collapse, they too fail and fall, hitting floors below which are not designed to recieve the shock, fail and fall...
The only thing between the top and the bottom becomes the joints which held the structure together. Those joints were sheared, stripped and bent.
There are thousands of experts in the construction industry & the steel industry who looked in horror and anger at what happened.
All of them support the structural damage -> fire -> bending moment -> progressive collapse consensus.
Tsk tsk you’re not paying attention. Three explosions have been provided thus far. Two by me and one by 1337m4n . One very loud and two not so loud on the recording
If you want to claim they are all different explosions that only makes your story less believable by your own standards. Three different explosions only caught by one microphone a piece? How did that happen? If they are all the same then why is only one very loud and the other two not so loud? There goes all your debunking claims about microphones.
If you want to claim they are faked audio then provide the proof like you ask the no-planners to provide proof of fake video. Are you a conspiracy theorist now?
You have failed miserably. Congratulations.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Very Good.
This part was especially interesting to me…
“If it is (2) that is true, then heads should roll for failing to do their jobs properly.”
Did everyone do their job in protecting the United States on 9/11? Where are all the rolling heads?
I don’t claim to know 9/11 was an inside job or if even there were any explosives in the towers. I just claimed there isn’t anyone here who has proved there weren’t. I also asked that if its ones position that there were no explosives in the towers but they were able to suffer global collapse then why is the only other alternative many explosives? Nothing has been debunked.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Who you crappin LC?
You can't prove as negative LC. What you can do is provide evidence of explosives if you have it. Do you? Of course you don't.
Figure out the source of your "explosion" video yet LC?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
And let me guess... He's 'Just asking questions'....
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
You can't prove a negative.
But, LC, you make a positive assertion that counters the commonly accepted one. If you can't back it up with evidence, then the logical conclusion is to revert to the previous explanation, which, unlike your "questions", is actually supported by evidence.
Why is it that all the people who claim to be "just asking questions" are rarely willing to listen to and understand the answers? Too much work to learn the principles that explain the answer? Perhaps it's just easier to continue in ignorance instead.
Let him have his perceived "victory", and stop feeding his trolling habit. The only ones who will agree that he "won" are like-minded individuals who probably wouldn't be swayed by reason either.
But, LC, you make a positive assertion that counters the commonly accepted one. If you can't back it up with evidence, then the logical conclusion is to revert to the previous explanation, which, unlike your "questions", is actually supported by evidence.
Why is it that all the people who claim to be "just asking questions" are rarely willing to listen to and understand the answers? Too much work to learn the principles that explain the answer? Perhaps it's just easier to continue in ignorance instead.
Let him have his perceived "victory", and stop feeding his trolling habit. The only ones who will agree that he "won" are like-minded individuals who probably wouldn't be swayed by reason either.
I'm not the one who claims to know the truth based on half-assed investigations. So who are you crappin?
Is that where Gravy’s movie goes wrong?
LC. What you can do is provide evidence of explosives if you have it. Do you? Of course you don't.
I already said I don’t. I don’t need it to debunk Gravy’s movie.
Do you have the complete chain of custody of all the 9/11 videos the no-planers claim are fake? What you can do is provide evidence of that for me. I already told you claiming fakes as your only rebuttal is lame. Unless you have some evidence of course. Do you?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Oh, how silly of me to ask you to prove your claims!Do you have the complete chain of custody of all the 9/11 videos the no-planers claim are fake? What you can do is provide evidence of that for me. I already told you claiming fakes as your only rebuttal is lame. Unless you have some evidence of course. Do you?
You don't know who took the video, you don't know when the video was taken, you don't know where the video was taken, you don't know who the people are in it and you have made no effort at all to find out who they were and interview them.
Surely those people could tell you all about your massive explosion LC, when will you (or anyone else in the "truth" movement) be contacting them?
What's that? You won't ever be contacting them? Thought so...
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
You do understand that everything preceding the quote you chose must be proven for it to be necessary for heads to roll, right? Meaning:
A) "after magically inventorying the entire contents of the TT we have found X" (where TT = Twin Towers and X = explosives such as: dynamite, C4, nitroglycerin, etc. That is to say X is substance, or device utilizing one or more substances, designed specifically to explode. For the purposes of this discussion it is not something like a propane canister, a bottle of hairspray, etc.)
B) "we've uncovered illegitimate explosives in the towers on 9/11"
C) "There was evidence for the investigators to find, but they failed to do so"
ETA: Basically, you completely missed the point of my link. You went straight to "heads should roll" without going through
1) Proving there were explosives
2) Proving that the explosives should not have been there
3) That the explosives were "findable" after the collapse
4) Proving that the investigators failed to find, or covered-up finding, said explosives
Last edited:
I ask again. Did everyone do their job properly leading up to and on 9/11 to protect the US? Stop dodging. Did someone's head roll? Because I missed it.
BTW as far as explosives and this thread goes and what I asked for....?
YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL
Oh but I did silly. All three videos are from 9/11 when many cameras were still rolling. That qualifies. Gravy only provided one wtc video to declare no explosions. I more then met his own standard. I also don't remember him sourcing where all his videos came from. Can I claim they're all fake like you do of mine?
Don't worry I won't. I'm not lame like some people grasping at straws.
For what? Is it a fake? You made the accusation. What are you basing it on other then you have nothing else? YOU FAIL
What's that? You won't ever be contacting them? Thought so...
Contact them for what? I have ears. I can hear fine. Can you...?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
You have 3 people in that video who you think could confirm bombs going off on 9/11 and you won't contact them?For what? Is it a fake? You made the accusation. What are you basing it on other then you have nothing else? YOU FAIL
Contact them for what? I have ears. I can hear fine. Can you...?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What are we failing at? If we do nothing you gain nothing, if we prove you wrong you still gain nothing.
As for heads rolling. Lots of policies that were in effect before 9/11 and some of the freedoms we enjoyed were the "heads that rolled". These policies that made 9/11 possible though do not have a single person to "scape goat" they were in effect for years. 9/11 happened because they were smart enough to identify the weaknesses and exploit them.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
If you are going to argue a premise of, "Did everyone do their job properly leading up to and on 9/11 to protect the US?" then don't quote-mine a post of mine that deals with a very specific set of premises, constructed in a singularly serial manner, that are more narrowly focused than that which you wish to argue. My series of premises, to which I linked, set forth a very clear set of criteria that need to be established to demonstrate culpability in a particular sub-section of what is being discussed in this thread.