No Explosives Here?

atavisms said:
really?

Regardless, 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies bc you can find an expert to say anything. (ie. Thomas Eager's embarrassment of a paper!
Click to expand...
Speaking of appeal to authority.

atavisms said:
Dr Niels Harrit, whose paper has been so ignorantly maligned here on this forum, has run the chemistry dept at the prestigious Niels Bohrs Institute in Copenhagen for 37 years. The (actually) peer-reviewed paper he was the lead author on, (Active Thermitic Materials..) involved 8 other scientists who have no reason to lie. Further studies are being conducted in France & Ct., as per Steven Jones.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ...^
 
Auuugh, if only Godwin's Law was more widely known back in 2006.

Srsly atavisms, this is a link to my post in this thread that you haven't responded to. I understand why, but come onnnnnnnnnnnnn.


Oh and I too also enjoy steak fries more so than julien fries.
 
atavisms said:
In law, facts are called 'facts' because they can be verified by either side in a case.
Deal with the facts, quit with the fallacious appeals to authority and remember, it is well informed lay people who are given the seat of power on juries in this country
Click to expand...

Your experts failed on cross examination. Capiche?
 
knife fight colobus said:
Auuugh, if only Godwin's Law was more widely known back in 2006.

Srsly atavisms, this is a link to my post in this thread that you haven't responded to. I understand why, but come onnnnnnnnnnnnn.


Oh and I too also enjoy steak fries more so than julien fries.
Click to expand...

Here's another good question that atavisms has ignored:

knife fight colobus said:
Also, let me ask you: do you disagree with the findings described in this quote by a 911 researcher who investigated the WTC collapses?

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
Click to expand...

And I'm not sure if this has been said but, welcome to the forums! :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is clearly a big face in the Moon, and that the stars revolve around the Earth, and that the sun is in fact a giant light bulb.
Click to expand...


we knew this even way back in the silent film era

atriptothemoon1902.jpg
 
When will twoofers learn that explosives don't propel tons of steel outwards? When will they learn that it can't pulverize concrete even when drilled directly in to it? Above all, when will the learn that there is no device that can do all of this silently?

You probably could find bombs that would do the above (except for the silent part), but it would without doubt cause shockwaves so powerful that would damage much of Manhatten and the deathtoll would have been much higher and we would be looking at 9/11 with a completely different perspective.
 
Correct me if im wrong, but don't the charges used for demolition use the ultra high temperature, high pressure plasma created in the detonation to cut the steel, by focusing it into one point, rather than the explosive force of the shockwave in the air?
 
HeyLeroy said:
Here's another good question that atavisms has ignored:
Click to expand...


Stolen 100% from Gravy. People think the box demonstration Gage gave was the best part of that debate but I think when Gravy brought that quote up that that was the best part of the debate.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Correct me if im wrong, but don't the charges used for demolition use the ultra high temperature, high pressure plasma created in the detonation to cut the steel, by focusing it into one point, rather than the explosive force of the shockwave in the air?
Click to expand...

Yes, they use shape charges. Without the shapes, they do zero damage to the structure which makes throwing steel columns laughable. So they would need to go with humungous bombs that would throw steel columns, but those types of bombs would hardly be discreet.
 
atavisms said:
but like I said, my point was, that we dont need any scientific paper, or expert opinions in this case,
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. All you need is a over active imagination, a desperate desire to imagine you see something that everybody else on the planet missed and an ability to totally ignore any scientific paper and/or expert opinion that proves you totally wrong.
 
Mellowing out?

beachnut said:
The photos and videos you supplied are clearly a gravity collapse. There were no blast effects on any WTC steel. And they studied and selected steel. No blast effects.

911 truth lies when they say the steel was not studied. Why do they lie?

No explosives. If you watch the video all the mass is moving down. In an explosion some mass moves close to the speed of sound in all directions for a short period. Stop action of a gravity collapse looks like an explosion to many of us, but carefully looking at the action the only thing going up is expelled air and smoke and some dust, the rest of the mass of the WTC is falling, not being exploded. Stop looking at the stills and posting junk ideas from web sites of lies.

Why does Hoffman lie? People were still alive in the WTC, they did not virtually turn to dust. Liars are all you will find at the web sites you picked to form your delusions on 911.

Oops, there are big chunks of concrete, not dust. Hoffman never corrects his web site he keeps posting junk about 911. You can use Hoffman's own work to easily debunk all his failed moronic conclusions. If you can't then get some help from teachers, parents, and anyone who is a rational thinker. Avoid people on meth or people who look like Hoffman.

Explosives make the sound of explosives not sounds like explosives.

The energy of the WTC collapse, gravity collapse without explosives released over 150 TONS of TNT energy in each tower. This is why the destruction of the WTC looked the way it did. Just from gravity the WTC complex looked like 300 2,000 pound bombs had destroyed the site. If Hoffman understood physics instead of being a fringe conspiracy theorist manufacturing false information he would be able to be much more rational.
Click to expand...
I actually did a "find word" search to make sure. "DIRT or DUMB" were not in your post.
I love it when you rip 'em a new one. :)
 
atavisms said:
As someone who lived through the events in Manhattan, saw the streets littered with body parts and lost two good friends, I find it difficult to fathom where all this hate comes from.
Click to expand...

What are your friends names?

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

Nice quote-mine, here's another:


“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
- Winston Churchill


I'm glad you respect Winston Churchill, I strongly reccomend that you study him. He saw World War 2, the Cold War and 9/11 and the war against Islamic extremism coming long before anyone else.
 
Hey if were throwin out quotes
heres one from Ben:
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
 
GlennB said:
Hoffman was wrong, either deliberately or through sheer stupidity. He took his figures from a study into the makeup of the drifting dust plume which, by definition, could contain no macroscopic debris. See how easily you were fooled, atavisms?
Click to expand...

actually I think that was Jim Hoffman's own early research which he abandoned for more compelling lines of inquiry.

In the paper he calculates the energy sinks required, based on the size and expansion rates of the massive dust clouds (which are so well documented) When he calculated the gravitational potential of the building and compared it to the sink required expand the clouds, it was off by a factor of like 10. (I believe)

I am not sure why you would think a highly redundant structure would turn it self to dust in midair, but there you are/

Fact is, (as much as I hate saying it) if you believe no explosives were used to accomplish this destruction, then it is clear that you are the one being fooled. The facts are what they are. You can choose to ignore them; many people do. Believe me, I understand this impetus for this.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...gzaerial4.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom