Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[ergo]

Going by the witness statements, not one is comparing the sounds of explosions to 1993. We can say that no witness has compared the two - at least based off of the statements we have.

So survivors who said that things like "Oh, they got us again" were going through their minds indicates no comparison to the 1993 bombing?

So, you can prove us wrong by producing a statement where a witness does compare - and this would back up your claim that witnesses actually did so.

How about we just acknowledge the original burden of proof here? Big Al should not be making that kind of assertion if he can't support it. Right? Otherwise it sounds more like his opinion. I believe that many New Yorkers would obviously compare what they were seeing and hearing to the 1993 bombing, if they had knowledge or firsthand experience of the 1993 bombing. Obviously.

 

[triforcharity]

I believe so, and I also understand that there are other ways to cut steel.

How many of them leave no traces on the steel, and would have gone undetected in a secured building 24/7/365?

 

[triforcharity]

A picture that small does not need a file size that large.



Because we don't know what fire looks like? Anyway, I'm relieved.

Hey, did you open the file? Did you actually try? It is a HUGE zoomable photo of GZ. You can zoom in and out on that. Try it, it's quite interesting.

I have to be very specific with Java, as sometimes he doesn't follow along well.

 

[ergo]

How many of them leave no traces on the steel, and would have gone undetected in a secured building 24/7/365?

Well, we're not there yet. I am just establishing that other types of demolition can occur that don't involve bang-bang-bang explosions.

 

[excaza]

Well, we're not there yet. I am just establishing that other types of demolition can occur that don't involve bang-bang-bang explosions.

Such as? Please provide evidence.

 

[ergo]

Hey, did you open the file? Did you actually try? It is a HUGE zoomable photo of GZ. You can zoom in and out on that. Try it, it's quite interesting.

Okay, I see. Yeah, that's pretty darn cool.

 

[ergo]

Such as? Please provide evidence.

Well, I'm sure you've heard the thermite theory.

I also point to your own pet theory--what was it? that sulfidation? oxidation? can turn structural steel into swiss cheese steel. So you say.

And of course, the obvious one: verinage.

 

[Disbelief]

So survivors who said that things like "Oh, they got us again" were going through their minds indicates no comparison to the 1993 bombing?

Or, they could just be saying that the attack was carried out by terrorists.

How about we just acknowledge the original burden of proof here? Big Al should not be making that kind of assertion if he can't support it. Right? Otherwise it sounds more like his opinion.

Actually, it is a valid claim because there are no witness statements comparing the sound of explosions to the 1993 bombing. What other proof do you require?

I believe that many New Yorkers would obviously compare what they were seeing and hearing to the 1993 bombing, if they had knowledge or firsthand experience of the 1993 bombing. Obviously.

Good, you made a claim. Now, since you made a positive claim you should be able to produce a statement from a witness comparing the explosions to the 1993 bombing. If not, your claim means nothing.

 

[jaydeehess]

I believe so, and I also understand that there are other ways to cut steel.

Yes, there are. Those ways involve heating the steel up to its melting point, a process that takes time and cannot be timed to the precision that would be required for the collapse to have taken place as the 911 conspracists tell us it did.

There are two ways to cut steel either by a focused, supersonically fast, fluid, or by a focused heating of a small line accross the steel using a gas hot enough to melt the steel. The former is quick (supersonically quick) and thus very loud, while the later takes time on the order of many seconds or minutes but is much quieter.

 

[excaza]

You mean the demonstrated weakening of steel (and pretty much every other material) as it is heated?

 

[triforcharity]

Well, we're not there yet. I am just establishing that other types of demolition can occur that don't involve bang-bang-bang explosions.

I am aware of two. One is called Verinage, and is done by using huge rams to push the supports out in an entire floor, and letting gravity do the work.

The second one involves using heavy equipment and huge cable to literally pull the building down.

Good luck!!

 

[jaydeehess]

And of course, the obvious one: verinage.

Verniage is similar to what happened to all three WTC structures that collapsed. The mass and momentum of the falling upper section destroyed the lower parts of the structure.
Glad you are coming around ergo.

 

[ergo]

Or, they could just be saying that the attack was carried out by terrorists.

We are referring to basement workers who are describing an explosion in the basement. "Oh, they got us again." What do you think that might refer to? What other terrorist attack has occurred in the WTC?

Actually, it is a valid claim because there are no witness statements comparing the sound of explosions to the 1993 bombing. What other proof do you require?

I already referred you to the web page of testimonials, many of which make this comparison. You refused to go look for yourself. I can't help you with that. I'm certainly not going to continue arguing with someone who won't even avail himself of the evidence.

This is such a stupid point to be arguing anyway. I can't even remember why it matters. It was something Big Al brought up, to make some as yet unstated point.

 

[ergo]

Verniage is similar to what happened to all three WTC structures that collapsed. The mass and momentum of the falling upper section destroyed the lower parts of the structure.
Glad you are coming around ergo.

It's not even remotely close. As has already been pointed out.

 

[excaza]

It's not even remotely close. As has already been pointed out.

The mass of the upper portion of the tower didn't destroy the lower portion? This is new.

 

[ergo]

The mass of the upper portion of the tower didn't destroy the lower portion? This is new.

Not in the WTC. If this is "new" to you, then I can only assume you don't read threads here.

 

[excaza]

Not in the WTC. If this is "new" to you, then I can only assume you don't read threads here.

Oh, right, the entire building was CD. My mistake.

 

[excaza]

You mean the demonstrated weakening of steel (and pretty much every other material) as it is heated?

Well, ergo? Do you disagree with this?

 

[Sabretooth]

Not in the WTC. If this is "new" to you, then I can only assume you don't read threads here.

New? No.

Reasonable? No.

 

[Disbelief]

We are referring to basement workers who are describing an explosion in the basement. "Oh, they got us again." What do you think that might refer to? What other terrorist attack has occurred in the WTC?

Yet, you have no timeframe when these quotes were taken.

I already referred you to the web page of testimonials, many of which make this comparison. You refused to go look for yourself. I can't help you with that. I'm certainly not going to continue arguing with someone who won't even avail himself of the evidence.

I did look and I could not find any quotes, even though since you made the claim you should provide the evidence. When caught, you can't even admit that you were wrong. There are no witness statements comparing 2001 to 1993.

This is such a stupid point to be arguing anyway. I can't even remember why it matters. It was something Big Al brought up, to make some as yet unstated point.

It was you trying to play gotcha, and it came back to bite you. Feel free to runaway now.