Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Grizzly, use your words and answer the question.

Two simple, coherent sentences will suffice.
 
I gave you a number, and links to support it. Either rid yourself of the link-phobia or drop it.
 
Last edited:
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
 
000063 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Survivors
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/
http://cnettv.cnet.com/wtc-collapse-survivors/9742-1_53-50044830.html

You, of course, are going to claim that since they didn't specifically say they did not hear loud explosions, that there were explosions.

That would ignore the fact that demo charges can cause hearing damage at a half-mile, open air. An enclosed space like a stairwell would leave the survivors struck deaf, temporarily or permanently.

Please present evidence that they were struck deaf.

Someone more knowledgeable than me can do the math on how loud it would be, exactly.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Survivors
Bone fragments were still being found in 2006 as workers prepared the damaged Deutsche Bank Building for demolition.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Grizzly, use your words and answer the question.

Two simple, coherent sentences will suffice.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you want your opponents to make unsupported statements without links? Trying to drag us all down to your level?

ergo said:
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
Click to expand...
In other words, you will ignore the links we've presented.

Would you like me to send you the relevant issue number of NY Mag by, I dunno, carrier pigeon? Telegraph? Pony express? Because I don't think they were trans-Atlantic. Because this is the Internet. If you want to send someone to a certain resource, you give them a link. Refusing to open links from your opponents, or even to Google the information, is so intellectually dishonest it borders on insane.

So, why do you not open links from debunkers? I am honestly trying to understand your logic here. Are you worried we'll trick you in some fashion?
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Would you like me to send you the relevant issue number of NY Mag by, I dunno, carrier pigeon? Telegraph? Pony express?
Click to expand...

No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question. Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance.

In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete.
 
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
 
ergo said:
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
Like this one? You are far ahead on SACs; I would say you win, moon down, mountain high.


ergo said:
Beachnut, how many survivors were in the cores. during the collapses. and lived to declare that there were no explosions?
Click to expand...

tsig said:
All of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, all of them is correct. No explosives. Explosives kill people.
 
Last edited:
It's funny that you keep posting that link. :D

Have you modeled your moonful of rubble yet, bedunkers?

No? How come?
 
ergo said:
It's funny that you keep posting that link. :D

Have you modeled your moonful of rubble yet, bedunkers?

No? How come?
Click to expand...
I did model the moon-full of rubble. Normal collapse takes 12.08 seconds based on a simple momentum model. Your moon-full of rubble takes 8.6 seconds to collapse the WTC from the impact floors. Sorry 911 truth can't do physics to help you. BTW, placing the weight of the moon on the WTC damaged floors would cause instant failure and a collapse very close to "free-fall". Got physics? 911 truth doesn't.

You peaked with that post. It is a great post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
You should be proud of your post, you are a winner. A whole moon worth of ruble can't destroy your claims.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question. Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance.

In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete.
Click to expand...

ergo said:
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
Click to expand...

Damn. Another broken irony meter.
 
ergo said:
I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question.
Click to expand...
The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.

Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it.

One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom