DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Cannot? Didn't they talk about multi-story buckles due to virtually no lateral support?
Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
I typically refrain from doing much more than reading some of these silly discussions by truthers but I have to jump in here....
And what branch of the military or what government agency do you believe is involved in "SECRET demolition devices and techniques"?
It absolutely AMAZES me when truthers talk about topics they know very little about...but even more so when they invoke the "It's SECRET technology that we don't know about".
Here is a little clue for you....if it's so obvious that even a truther can figure it out then it's hardly a secret.....and linking to documents or (ROFL) youtube videos that never were classified or have been declassified don't really do much to support the "BUT ITS SOOPER SEKRIT" argument.
This is why folks in the government just laugh truthers off when you start discussing the military or Intel agencies....cause you don't know what you are talking about.
And the same is true of Engineers when you discuss Engineering, Firefighters when you discuss firefighting, etc.
The idea that there are SECRET "techniques or technology" for demolishing a building is ridiculous.
And what branch of the military or what government agency do you believe is involved in "SECRET demolition devices and techniques"?
It absolutely AMAZES me when truthers talk about topics they know very little about...but even more so when they invoke the "It's SECRET technology that we don't know about".
Here is a little clue for you....if it's so obvious that even a truther can figure it out then it's hardly a secret.....and linking to documents or (ROFL) youtube videos that never were classified or have been declassified don't really do much to support the "BUT ITS SOOPER SEKRIT" argument.
This is why folks in the government just laugh truthers off when you start discussing the military or Intel agencies....cause you don't know what you are talking about.
And the same is true of Engineers when you discuss Engineering, Firefighters when you discuss firefighting, etc.
The idea that there are SECRET "techniques or technology" for demolishing a building is ridiculous.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Try that one one the unknowing public please. Implicitly suggesting that I share your incredulity - see the following where you make it explicit:
the only mechanism known to you AND circular logic
Hogwash as you switch from my assessment to your incredulity.
I wont call that sarcasm - I think you mean it so it probably truthfully reflects your unclear thinking and fixed position of denial which you falsely attribute to me.
The central point of your incredulity is that you can only conceive of one possibility - or can only afford to admit one given your need for a pre-determined outcome - that one possibility is use of explosive or incendiary demolition. It isn't the only one and no amount of snide reflections on my reasoning will eliminate the multiple other possible mechanisms.
My position simply stated is that I accept the reality of the multitude of possible structural failure mechanisms even though I cannot specify them to the level of "column x failed by reason y taking out beam z". There was no demolition and the only reason none of us can specify the exact failure mechanism is that with the WTC7 collapse it was hidden from clear view. As I said the main reason truthers choose WTC7 is just that. Sufficient evidence is abundantly clear for WTC1 & WTC2 so truthers pick WTC7 where the exact detail of the structural failure cannot be discerned. And you choose to misread the overwhelming evidence against demolition which I briefly summarised. So be it. Your call - I for one do not fall for the part truth trickery and evasions.
Animal
Master Poster
And layered on that is the ridiculous notion that these devices could have been delivered to a building in lower Manhattan, received into the building, transported to the required floors, installed, the damage repaired, the furniture replaced with not one person noticing, .in a building that was occupied 24/7, in a building where use of freight elevators required several days notice, in a city that never sleeps, in a city that nothing is delivered or moved without several different unions being involved.
Add to that the fact that not ONE piece of the supposed devices was ever found....despite the multiple layers of inspection of the debris that recovered over 50,000 personal effects.
The number of people that would have been required to carry out such a plan without ONE person spilling the beans makes the idea of "controlled demolition" more than ridiculous
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You're not thinking "outside of the box". This is the freaking US military, they could do SOMETHING to make this happen.
Come on........think Playstation!
ozeco41
Philosopher
And he has the gall to tell me, the military engineer that, as if detection of demolition devices depended on them being the specific ones available to an Aussie Army engineer.
Similar comment to my previous. As if qualified engineers could not detect use of devices with which they were not yet familiar. Truther logic all over again - take the element of concern to the truther. Take it totally out of context. Then claim it is wrong. The contextual setting shows the lie.
except that he claims that this engineer has no imagination
...partly true - my imagination is NOT limited to what is plausible BUT I choose to not propose implausible "magic" as a solution.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
...partly true - my imagination is NOT limited to what is plausible BUT I choose to not propose implausible "magic" as a solution.
It appears you have identified your "debunker" problem...now if you would please fix that you would no longer be a "sheeple" and could finally learn the TRUTH of what happened on 9/11...(inside jobby job)
ozeco41
Philosopher
True. In an ironic sort of way.You're not thinking "outside of the box". This is the freaking US military, they could do SOMETHING to make this happen.
Come on........think Playstation!
I am accused of staying in the nine dots. By someone whose perspective is one dot or at most four dots.
When in fact I have considered and identified all twenty five dots....
....and most of the forty nine dots.
But I wont stay with the metaphor 'coz someone will point out that I am still accepting a two dimensional matrix.
...and it gets hard to visualise beyond three dimensions....
ozeco41
Philosopher
ozeco41
Philosopher
See my several times repeated comment.
You have to ignore all that context stuff OTHERWISE you scheme becomes impossible.
Animal
Master Poster
See my several times repeated comment.
You have to ignore all that context stuff OTHERWISE you scheme becomes impossible.
Years ago I did work in NYC, including a project in the Empire State Buiding and one in the mall of the WTC. These troofers have no clue what it is like gettign anything done in NYC.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I don't know how or why the building was rigged for demolition but I can look at the results and see that it was.
[FONT="]Provide another way of removing all the supporting structure on 8 floors in a synchronistic manner that results in free fall acceleration or stop claiming that there is.
[/FONT]
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Thank you
That is what Shyam Sunder said and we agree on this part:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ."
Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63.
"there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Not far enough DGM. You're being too easy. To be truthful it should be "...and think that it was one of the plausible options." At this stage he has been made aware of other plausible options for explaining collapse which have been put by me and others and he has not eliminated those other options.
In addition I have outlined some of the case against demolition which he also has not legitimately addressed. To be truthful those outlined facts or the fully detailed explanations backing those outlines must also be addressed.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w
Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.
What plausible options?
ETA: You keep saying that but you have not provided any plausible options.
Thinking up reasons to believe that what clearly looks like a CD is not a CD demonstrates a desire not to believe the obvious.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Should we add "and I can't come up with a plausible reason anyone would do this in the first place"?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
But, for some reason your best explanation for why is random youtube videos. You really don't wonder why people don't pay attention to you, do you?
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
2 minutes and 19 seconds, you'd think they could at least spare a few more seconds to show the entire collapse.
I agree entirely. However, there were no implosions on 9/11.
We don't need to think up any reasons. We already know it wasn't a controlled demolition.
Two aircraft struck each tower at about the same place, causing massive structural damage and a raging inferno. Roughly the same time they collapsed in strikingly similar fashion. To normal people, this makes sense. Two identical things resulted in to identical collapses.
Where's the beef?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
In your video you say that "by 5:20 PM all the fires were extinguished". Is it your contention that the FDNY lied when they claimed no firefighting efforts were used? (Your video= your claim) You wouldn't link a video that has lies? Would you?
Last edited: