No Explosives Here?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I wouldn't say he lied, but more he is being dishonest. Maybe he did know some people, but they weren't victims, but more like witnesses.

Except that he said that he "lost two good friends".

Unless he means there were friends he had there who now aren't his friends anymore since he joined the 9/11 grave-pisser cult?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

- my point was that we dont any authority to us the obvious.

There are cases where claiming "it's obvious" is nothing more than an intellectual short-circuit. It's designed to promote belief, not thought. "It's obvious! Why are you thinking about it so much?"

It's the difference between a deeply religious person claiming it's obvious that, say, the Grand Canyon is the work of God, and geologists thinking about and actually studying the Grand Canyon to figure out how it was made.

You have a deeply religious-like faith in this fantasy about 9/11 you keep going on about. Just look at yourself; you're preaching about the "obvious" and condemning the non-believers.

(besides, we all know what a PhD is worth, never more than the character of the person whose name is on it)

You also quite clearly have issues with higher education. You seem bothered by the fact that the educated are held in such high regard. So much so that you feel it necessary to malign them and claim their degrees are worthless.

What's really bizarre, though, is your previous touting of PhD's within the Truth Movement as a good sign, and yet... you believe they're worthless. That's what we call "cognitive dissonance".

 

[triforcharity]

I stand corrected. If he really was friends with these people, I really don't see why he would have a problem revealing their names. I see no reason why there would be a problem with this.

 

[twinstead]

What's really bizarre, though, is your previous touting of PhD's within the Truth Movement as a good sign, and yet... you believe they're worthless. That's what we call "cognitive dissonance".

Obviously PhD's are only worthless when they don't agree with him

 

[kookbreaker]

I stand corrected. If he really was friends with these people, I really don't see why he would have a problem revealing their names. I see no reason why there would be a problem with this.

Considering his previous comments about talking to FDNY members being an obvious lie....

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah, but just be carefull. It could end up like my thread sometime ago about my twoofer experience. Say you think he is lying, or believe he is lying. I fully believe that he is full of ****.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Fine, I think he is lying.

I also think the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second.

 

[triforcharity]

Oh, I believe 100% that he is lying, based on the statement that he has spoken to many firefighters in NYC, and they all believe that BS. I know this to be wrong. I am one of them.

No hard feelings, like I said, I believe he is a liar too.

 

[TruthersLie]

Except that he said that he "lost two good friends".

Unless he means there were friends he had there who now aren't his friends anymore since he joined the 9/11 grave-pisser cult?

Wait.. Lets use the RED IBIS vocabulary.

Was his story "exposed as a fabrication?"

 

[TruthersLie]

Considering his previous comments about talking to FDNY members being an obvious lie....

and where niels Harrit worked
Who he worked for
what his position was where he worked.
And he claims not to be a truther (another lie).

Do we have more? Off the top of my head I can't think of any others... besides the normal truther lies about the collapses...

 

[TruthersLie]

Fine, I think he is lying.

I also think the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second.

Wow... is that a super duper shop vac?

Or one of those super duper hair vacuums?
Just think how fast it would be if it was in a Rainbow vacuum

and because I'm physic's challenged... what exactly is the speed of DARK?

 

[A W Smith]

Phoenix building to come down via CD any moment live on Fox. Lets listen for silent explosions. shall we?

 

[apathoid]

Dang, I thought somebody bumped a really old thread. I guess if I were a truther, I'd be a little nostalgic for the good ole' days too. The new arguments just don't work...and they certainly aren't as fun!

 

[funk de fino]

I only lived it and read about it daily in the newspaper when protests were going in here in ny, while they were still burying the hundreds of firefighters murdered that day. Families protesting, little kids standing with signs saying, "My Daddy Is Not Garbage" as authorities (looking to keep those job..oh yah) rushed to clear the sites. Lied about the air quality in lower Manhattan, etc.
The firefighters were not even done looking for their brothers, they practically rioted one day w/Bloomberg going 'You don't need the steel to study what happened. That is done in computers.'

That must be what you believe.. The sad miserable facts are otherwise. Only one wtc steel tells one story.. Unfortunately for the perpetrators there is also a mountain of highly damning evidence they left behind/ It shows their arrogance (and use of some kind of explosives)

Brent Blanchards paper. Page 8, assertion 6. He proves your claims about the steel to be wrong.

It was all examined by forensic investigators, demo teams and public officials at the sorting sites. Before it was sent anywhere.

If you do not believe him you can email him or contact any of the people mentioned in the paper.

You have no evidence of explosives.

 

[johnny karate]

Please provide a list of witnesses and on-site investigators who believe explosives were used to bring down any of the WTC buidlings on 9/11.

Bump for atavisms.

 

[Arus808]

I don't have a problem with the way the crime scene was handled. You seem to.

also take into account that the scene was treated as a rescue effort first and then a crime scene.

 

[TJM]

also take into account that the scene was treated as a rescue effort first and then a crime scene.

And a recovery effort after that.

 

[HeyLeroy]

atavisms are you just ignoring my post?

Of course he is; he's ignored many. I'll not bother linking to four of them individually, but I will link to a post that does.

What about it, attavisms? Why are you ignoring these?

I'm guessing it's because you know the answers fly in the face of your cult-like belief system.

Your behaviour is extremely intellectually dishonest.

Any bets againt atavisms not reading all that info?

I'll bet against it.

He might, he might not. Matters little to me. I post for those who care to be informed and want the facts refuting the proffered myths. If that includes atavisms, then great. If not, oh well. Regardless, the info might help somebody out there. Who it helps just depends on whether any readers choose to analyze things critically or not.

Above and beyond there, ElMondo. Above and beyond.

 

[fourtoe]

2: The fact that they found some intact wall board or concrete does not explain what else they found..

Someone can now say, 'there were no smoldering pits of fire that would not go out bc warners bros pieces and numerous basement spaces (doesnt gravity drive thing down) were found intact.' Both are true. and that is a small part of how this division works.

These were massive spaces, the tallest buildings of their day, 'over-designed and highly redundant.'

Well thank you for the response, as incoherent as it is....


That quote of a 911 researcher was from Dr Steven Jones.

Jones believes that nano-thermite was utilized in the destruction of the WTC buildings, something that I get the impression you agree with...obviously you disagree with Dr Jones, the guy who Dylan Avery says has come the closest to proving that nano-thermite was used in a CD on what the aftermath of a building that was taken down of that fashion.

Do you mind explaining why you disagree with Dr Jones on his assessment of the aftermath of the WTC collapses?

Will I have to post 20 more times asking you to answer this question as well?

That last question isn't so important for you to answer, focus on your disagreement with Dr Jones.

 

[Furcifer]

I think people might be over stating things here. The towers certainly didn't fall within their "footprints". The debris was scattered over a sizable area, and many buildings suffered extensive damage due to the collapse, most noteably WTC7.

My only problem is the notion that a "controlled demolition" would have been much more controlled. The fact is, aside from the initial tilt, the buildings both fell down. Straight down.

I think the debris pile and damage to the surrounding buildings would have been the same had the towers actually been CD'd.

I say this knowing full well that a CD would have caused the blow out of almost all the windows in lower Manhattan. But we're playing dumb here so bare with me.

In an actual controlled demo, the core would have been the first to go. This would have minimized the lateral ejection of material. The goal would have been to "implode" the buildings as much as possible to avoid damaging the surrounding buildings.

Due to the height of the buildings and their unusually small footprint (in relation to the height of course) I'm not certain a professional (using thermite, from the top down :rolleyes) could have brought down the towers any better, or with less damage, than we saw on 9/11.

That being said, I'd caution against arguing the whole "footprint" thing with the truth movement. Given the lattitude the truth movement is taking the end result really does resemble a CD (in truther land)

I'm only saying this after reading the "Hardfire" thread. In that, realcddeal or tony as he likes to be called, is apparently denying there was any initial tilt. This denial serves two purposes in my opinion. 1) He's convinced the video evidence shows the upper block is being destroyed by explosives in the first few seconds, and uses the dip in the roof line as proof. This is contrary to the evidence that the dip is a result of the camera angle and the "tilt" observed in the upper block. Accepting the tilt means accepting the fact that the core was not blown out and the upper section did not "turtle" in upon itself. 2) The tilt is the main reason the debris did not fall perfectly within the footprint. Most of the lateral ejection of heavy material (exterior sections) can be attributed to the tilt of the upper section as it tucks behind the lower section. Without the tilt the exterior falls straight down due to gravity in a neat pile at the foot of the building. This, in the truther mind, means that the debris ejected outside the footprint got there by some external force other than gravity. I'll let you guess what that force might be. And I'll give you a hint, it isn't "On Angels wings"