[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
See large piles of debris.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
So, will you return when you find the pics of the large debris piles? By the way, how tall should the piles have been?
ok, I've checked. I don't seem to find any evidence of "large piles" of debris. Instead, all I find is a psy op intended to make people think there was a large pile. There wasn't.
Of course, when getting into this subject, as it relates to 9/11, seeing is not believing. People don't believe their own eyes or their own expectations.
Some of you probably saw that Oliver Stone movie about the trapped firefighters. Does anyone recall what was said when they emerged from the little entanglement they were trapped in?
Of course, when getting into this subject, as it relates to 9/11, seeing is not believing. People don't believe their own eyes or their own expectations.
Some of you probably saw that Oliver Stone movie about the trapped firefighters. Does anyone recall what was said when they emerged from the little entanglement they were trapped in?
You can answer that question, right? I suspect you're being coy.
However, as and for my first picture, I'd like to offer up an example of a DEW, rather than visual proof that there was no debris pile. Doing so usually doesn't get anywhere because people have learned to conform their opinions, not to what can be seen, but rather, to what the official myth mandates. This is called a willing suspension of disbelief.
Here's a DEW:
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
I can give an approximation, but I suspect that the figure would be off by quite a bit because of the chaotic nature of the collapse. Actually, you could easily do your own approximation.
jammonius said:
What exactly does this prove? Why don't you just search for the pics of the debris pile, as they are pretty easy to find.
jammonius said:
Why should I be suspended!!!
jammonius said:
What would that thing take down? Why not look up the information here about the amount of power necessary to power one large enough to "dew" all that Dr Judy claims.
I can give an approximation, but I suspect that the figure would be off by quite a bit because of the chaotic nature of the collapse. Actually, you could easily do your own approximation.
What exactly does this prove? Why don't you just search for the pics of the debris pile, as they are pretty easy to find.
Why should I be suspended!!!
What would that thing take down? Why not look up the information here about the amount of power necessary to power one large enough to "dew" all that Dr Judy claims.
Your questions are reasonable, but, I would have thought that posters in this thread would have already explored all of that. Let me double check for accuracy; do posters here really want to explore the DEW causal theory, or would they prefer, instead, to just banter back and forth, hurling insults, put downs and such like?
Either way it's alright with me; but if we're going to discuss DEW causal theory, then it should be done, not in a serious manner, after all, this is a message board, but it should be a little bit above the level of posting one liners, I think.
What do others say?
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
... then it should be done when it's the thread topic, and probably in a more suitable sub-forum.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
Like I said, you can search for the thread, or you can always start a new one. No matter where you go, there are always going to be posters putting out one liners. However, don't blow off all these posts, because some are quite hilarious and others say quite a lot with few words.
jammonius said:
Start a thread. You always have the ability to alert a mod if the thread is not on topic. Make sure that you link it to some conspiracy or the mods will move it.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
As an engineer who has done some work in the field of particle beams...
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Since posters here are not a monolithic entity but a collection of individuals, it would be fair to say that both these preferences are well represented. However, if you want to explore the possibility of DEW causality in the WTC collapses - preferably in a new thread with an appropriate title - I suggest you start by compiling a thorough and rigorous refutation of the following post by R.Mackey:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102
Unless and until the points raised in this post have been credibly challenged, serious debate about DEW is unlikely to gain much traction here, simply because there is at present no rational DEW position to defend.
Dave
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
You are either lacking in effort or you are a nasty liar?
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Down.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Last edited:
Thanks for the tip. One reason why I see no need to start a new thread is that DEW is a part of legal challenges that this thread quite specifically deals with.
I also appreciate your reference to the above thread and post12086102. Boy was that ever b o r i n g in my opinion. There is no doubt that DEW exist and the evidence that they are found in every terrestrial venue, including orbit, is, at this point, beyond controversy even when one's sources of information are limited to unclassified sources (as mine are). I do not even want to see classified information, it simply isn't that useful.
The danger here is that people tend to fall into one of only a few categories with respect to DEW; namely,
1--Those who are convinced by the information available to them that DEW exist and are deployed.
2--Those who are skeptical.
3--Those who assert DEW are, at most, in very early stages of development and are not deployed.
Almost all so-called 'technical' discussions of DEW centering, for instance, on the "power requirement" are so assumption riddled as to be next to useless.
Consider, for example, the oft stated canard, "to destroy the WTC in 10 seconds with DEW, more power than is generated on earth in an entire day would have been needed."
OK, well, if that is the case, then why aren't the Twin Towers still standing? After all, they did disappear down to next to nothing in 10 seconds, leaving a combined debris field that was almost completely uniform in a height of LESS THAN 1 STOREY.
If kerosene (for that is what jet fuel is), gravity and a smack from a hollow aluminum tube can do that, why do we need any other kind of weapon?
Plainly, the official story relies on energy events that are far too puny to have destroyed the Twin Towers as quickly and as thoroughly as was seen.
Bringing this post more fully into the theme of this thread, one of the defendants in the cases at hand is Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA).
It might interest posters to know that on their website, ARA boasts of having capabilities that look (I say "look") very much like taking credit for destroying the WTC.
Posters agree?
Need more proof?
What is ARA trying to tell us with this one?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Can I assume by "checking" your talking to the first responders and the thousands of people that worked on the piles. If not your only trying to support your own fantasy and have no interest in what actually happened.
As I said above, the debris pile was less than 1 STOREY in height. The above photo clearly shows the base or lobby level of the exterior wall of WTC 1 and the debris field is plainly lower than that, pretty much all across the GZ site.
Here's one that we can date with some certainty because WTC 7 is still seen in the background, so we know this one comes from 9/11 itself. GZ is flat:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
It was MANY stories tall, you liar.