Welcome to the Twilight Zone

[pomeroo]

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......

Please understand that I may be a bit obtuse. When you claim to have proved that detonation events don't necessarily show up on local seismic records, you cited a story in a Las Vegas newspaper that described the demolition of the Aladdin as "a small blip on a seismograph." Now, we can all agree that this means IT WOULD SHOW UP. Words still have meanings, right?
Are you hoping nobody will notice? Did you fail to notice this minor detail yourself?

 

[Gravy]

I think it's sooper sekret military shiate. It's done with stuff that nobody else knows about yet. (Not even the military...LOL)

It's pretty much the same argument that the UFO folks claim. It's simply too advanced for us to understand it.

You see, "it was done with technology that hasn't been publicized yet" is an airtight escape clause. Nuttier than hell but what do they claim that isn't?

Well, the entire "truth" movement is based on the concept that it's enough to simply spew claims. Hey, they've been successful at spreading idiocy by doing just that: why change?

That's why I started the "refusing to act" thread. Dishonest Jihadist apologists like Sizzler will finally, after being asked over and over and over, agree to do something. And then they invariably fail to do it. And when confronted about that they'll make an excuse and be off posting more nonsense in another thread on an internet forum. They just don't give a damn.

I would love to be the fly on the wall at Jihadist Apologist Fantasy Camp when one of these truthers sits down to try to figure out how their imagined plan was actually carried out, and tries to make all that fit with the observed events and post-collapse evidence and investigations.

 

[Sizzler]

Please understand that I may be a bit obtuse. When you claim to have proved that detonation events don't necessarily show up on local seismic records, you cited a story in a Las Vegas newspaper that described the demolition of the Aladdin as "a small blip on a seismograph." Now, we can all agree that this means IT WOULD SHOW UP. Words still have meanings, right?
Are you hoping nobody will notice? Did you fail to notice this minor detail yourself?

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.
But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust -- where the release of strain results in powerful earthquakes -- the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[pomeroo]

Is that clear enough for you?

We'll see. Stay tuned.

 

[Sizzler]

We'll see. Stay tuned.

Is this a retraction of your previous false statement which was based soley on your poor comprehension of the link I provided?

I'll take it as such. Thanks

 

[pomeroo]

Is this a retraction of your previous false statement which was based soley on your poor comprehension of the link I provided?

I'll take it as such. Thanks

Not quite. It means something closer to

"A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring..."

Remember how rationalists are always advising fantasists to try actually contacting experts?

 

[beachnut]

Is this a retraction of your previous false statement which was based soley on your poor comprehension of the link I provided?
I'll take it as such. Thanks

You have a long history of false statements, or is it wrong statements.
[
quote=Sizzler;3350919]...a wood burning furnace/heater. ...Less oxygen may cause a fire to burn slower, but certainly not hotter.[/quote]Wrong; I just thought I would point out your history of errors. You lack of understanding on fire may hinder your ability to form rational conclusions.

Your pattern of past post that are wrong, could be your problem. Comprehension is important; without it you will fall for lies of 9/11 truth and make serious logical errors sorting out rational conclusions.

Steel does not always fail in office fires. In fact there are more examples of it not failing than failing.

Also, fire does not cause steel to fail in the manner explosives or thermite cutters do.
Those are facts that you fail to address.

Thermite cutters; where are all those thermite cutters? Un-fought fires do destroy steels strength. Show me some major office fires not fought that did not! This is making your "fake" plot look bad. Do you have any posts based on real facts? So me some steel on 9/11 damaged by thermite cutters, or explosives. Got some photos from the Major Tom radio controlled explosive guy?

Oops, the whole top would fail, but the core is concrete. Alas, the building was too weak from a fire fought, to stand. Do not look at the progressive collaspe of the steel only sectoins, it could ruin your imaginary ideas on fire. The lower sections did better, I think it has to do with physics of water and energy you can send it up in the air. But simple fire destorys steel. Note; there was not 10,000 gallons of fuel to set this building on fire; no 2200 pounds of TNT aircraft impact. But the building was TOTALED. Look at that steel; all done with fire, no thermite cutters. Do you have a thermit cutter. Before you say thermite cutters did it, remember no thermite cuts were found, and no thermite cutters were found. Did you make up thermite cutters by yourself or did you use the lies of Jones? How does this fit in the TZ world?

I think there was a little water shot at WTC5 direction. But we have floors that failed in fire. Oops, I have yet to find a fire that burned for a while that did not destroy the strength of steel. And looks like falling steel. I will find some steel not bent soon, right? You said...

But on the OP topic, this is the kind of evidence which would prove the bad guys doing the TZ report would be in big trouble saying the stupid things that only the dummies at 9/11 truth are saying in the real world. What a bunch of nut case ideas, all at 9/11 truth, one stop stupid shopping for woo.

Oops, one meridian plaza in my home town, philly. Darn, the fire bent the steel. Wait, the fire weakened the steel, and the loaded floor sagged. Where is one meridian plaza in downtown philly steakville? In the dump! Fire destroys the strength of steel faster than wood. Why is this? Do you have that chart of steel strength? This does not look good for you TZ crew of woo reports on 9/11 TZ caper. So it looks bad for your ideas of super steel. They got out of one meridian plaza, they thought it could fall. Building totaled by fire like the WTC. WTC totaled by fire; many other steel buildings destroyed by fire.

 

[Gravy]

A reminder for Sizzler, regarding your demolition hypothesis:

I've been asking people to tell us how it could be done since April, 2006. Not a single person has attempted it.

You say it's an engineered event, Sizzler.

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?

When can we expect your rational, scientific explanation of how this "engineered event" was accomplished, that fits the facts?

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

WTC 2.

 

[Sizzler]

Not quite. It means something closer to

"A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring..."

Remember how rationalists are always advising fantasists to try actually contacting experts?

So you don't retract your statement?

Even when it has been proven to be wrong?

YOUR error is simply because you failed to read the next paragraph, or lack the ability to comprehend conditional clauses in the English language.

By the way, a conditional clause is one that starts with the word, if.

There are two kinds of conditional clauses; real and unreal. If the conditional is unreal, would is used in the main clause.

Lets look at the example:

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.

You see. This is an example of an UNREAL CONDITIONAL CLAUSE.

In layman's terms, an unreal conditional clause DID NOT HAPPEN....hence, the use of IF.

 

[Sizzler]

A reminder for Sizzler, regarding your demolition hypothesis:
When can we expect your rational, scientific explanation of how this "engineered event" was accomplished, that fits the facts?

edit: quote taken out of context.

sorry

Gravy: I'll try to have something posted soon.

 

[Pardalis]

Gravy: I'll try to have something posted soon.

*reaches in far up his [rule9]*

 

[Sizzler]

BeachNut wrote:

Un-fought fires do destroy steels strength. Show me some major office fires not fought that did not!

Well lets look at my claims:

Steel does not always fail in office fires. In fact there are more examples of it not failing than failing.

My claim is worded poorly, i will retract it.

Revised claim: Individaul steel members may fail, but that doesn't mean the whole steel structure of the building will fail.

here are a few examples:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Also, fire does not cause steel to fail in the manner explosives or thermite cutters do.

Key word here is the "manner".

 

[beachnut]

BeachNut wrote:
Well lets look at my claims:
My claim is worded poorly, i will retract it.
Revised claim: Individaul steel members may fail, but that doesn't mean the whole steel structure of the building will fail.
here are a few examples:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Key word here is the "manner".

Move those goal posts.

WTC7 was not an unusual fire.
I've seen other steel framed highrise fires that actually looked hotter estimated to be 800C.

Oh, a fire not fought, a building damage by tons of debris, a building with 20,000 gallons of fuel in it, a building very unique design, is not an unusual fire case? I have to say, with thinking like this there is a problem with research, knowledge, and rational thinking. This is the kind of trouble your TZ team of 9/11 fake report authors face. They would be caught and found to be liars.

Your overall problem is one of knowledge. As you try to catch up on 9/11 you are repeating all the errors of 9/11 truth for the past 6 years. 6 years of wrong. At least you missed peak stupid (as in quantity; you may be competing for top quality stupid ideas).

 

[Sizzler]

Move those goal posts.

It is a learning process. Everyone has the right to do it.

You brought up a badly worded claim, and I retracted and replaced it with a more accurate claim.

Thanks for helping me learn.

Moving goal posts is not exclusive to the truth movement.

A couple of examples from the official hypothesis;

Truss failure caused collapse---->strong trusses caused perimeter bowing and subsequent collapse

Military sent up planes---->military sent up planes when it was too late

Molten Aluminum was pooring out of building--->Molten aluminum mixed with debris was pooring out of building


You see....this is perfectly normal.

But what isn't normal is when people like Pomeroo or other (previously mentioned) do not retract false claims.

 

[Pardalis]

Moving goal posts is not exclusive to the truth movement.

A couple of examples from the official hypothesis;

Truss failure caused collapse---->strong trusses caused perimeter bowing and subsequent collapse

Military sent up planes---->military sent up planes when it was too late

Molten Aluminum was pooring out of building--->Molten aluminum mixed with debris was pooring out of building


You see....this is perfectly normal.

That's not moving the goalposts, that's being more specific.

You just can't learn can't you?

 

[beachnut]

It is a learning process. Everyone has the right to do it.
You brought up a badly worded claim, and I retracted and replaced it with a more accurate claim.
Thanks for helping me learn.
Moving goal posts is not exclusive to the truth movement.
A couple of examples from the official hypothesis;
Truss failure caused collapse---->strong trusses caused perimeter bowing and subsequent collapse
Military sent up planes---->military sent up planes when it was too late
Molten Aluminum was pooring out of building--->Molten aluminum mixed with debris was pooring out of building
You see....this is perfectly normal.
But what isn't normal is when people like Pomeroo or other (previously mentioned) do not retract false claims.

No, do not see it. Truss, you failed to read NIST
NORAD, not one thing about NORAD on 9/11 that means anything for 9/11 truth. (goalposts not moved)
Molten Aluminum?

Moten Al, or thermite? Notice the telltale white flame, it is proof of thermite - [jones]my name is ThermiteJones, believe me I am too nice to tell a lie but I hate Bush and the war in Iraq, I am not insane (best dick Nixon impression)[/jones]

I do not see anything in the so called official story that is close to the lies of 9/11 truth. Fact is, 9/11 truth makes up those idea you post.

 

[pomeroo]

Right about now would be a really good time to plow through the thread "New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis," our introduction to Sizzler. As a display of disingenuousness, I think it outdoes Gregory Urich's best effort. I'm proud of the contribution I made on page 9:

"I must have dozed off. Did he get to his conclusion that explosives brought down the Towers yet?"

 

[pomeroo]

So you don't retract your statement?

Even when it has been proven to be wrong?

YOUR error is simply because you failed to read the next paragraph, or lack the ability to comprehend conditional clauses in the English language.

By the way, a conditional clause is one that starts with the word, if.

There are two kinds of conditional clauses; real and unreal. If the conditional is unreal, would is used in the main clause.

Lets look at the example:



You see. This is an example of an UNREAL CONDITIONAL CLAUSE.

In layman's terms, an unreal conditional clause DID NOT HAPPEN....hence, the use of IF.

Obviously, I didn't read the entire article. I couldn't read it--I got an error message stating that the page wasn't available. When you posted the relevant part, I tried again and managed to access the whole article. But, I must repeat that you've entered dangerous waters. As a twoofer, you refuse to consult experts. I don't. I try to find any who will talk with me. I suspect that you won't appreciate what I believe they will tell me.

 

[Sizzler]

Obviously, I didn't read the entire article. I couldn't read it--I got an error message stating that the page wasn't available. When you posted the relevant part, I tried again and managed to access the whole article. But, I must repeat that you've entered dangerous waters. As a twoofer, you refuse to consult experts. I don't. I try to find any who will talk with me. I suspect that you won't appreciate what I believe they will tell me.

You made the mistake. I did not post the "blip" part. You must have gotten that from the article I linked to. Thus you had a chance to read the whole thing and didn't. You misquoted it.

Then you wrote this:

Please understand that I may be a bit obtuse. When you claim to have proved that detonation events don't necessarily show up on local seismic records, you cited a story in a Las Vegas newspaper that described the demolition of the Aladdin as "a small blip on a seismograph." Now, we can all agree that this means IT WOULD SHOW UP. Words still have meanings, right?
Are you hoping nobody will notice? Did you fail to notice this minor detail yourself?

You imply that I was misleading people.

I have called you out on your mistake. I was not misleading anyone.

Please be a man and retract the satement. You are obviously completely wrong about this.