No Explosives Here?

[Dave Rogers]

There's no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the planes.

That's a lie. There is ample evidence that the hijackers boarded the planes. You may personally believe that the evidence is unconvincing, but to pretend it doesn't exist is simple dishonesty on your part.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down. Pass it around. 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Dave Rogers]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down. Pass it around. 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

There's no evidence that the alleged 99 bottles of beer ever boarded the wall.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

There's no evidence that the alleged 99 bottles of beer ever boarded the wall.

I usually consider my falling off the barstool when I try to get up as evidence

 

[JAStewart]

I usually consider my falling off the barstool when I try to get up as evidence

Argument ad(d) alcoholum


I'll get me coat.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.

Think of it another way; it demonstrates that none are required once the collapse has already initiated. Which means once the collapse got going it was indeed inevitable.

 

[Mancman]

The Verinage technique proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition.

Try reading the thread Ace. atavism says there were explosives, Trutherslie lists features of an explosive demolition which were not present at the WTC, the absence of which utterly rule out explosives. Therefore, atavism is wrong and your verinage comment is irrelevant to the line of discussion, see how that works? Real neat, isn't it?

 

[T.A.M.]

Remember the days when REAL truthers came here with REAL arguments...

wait...that never happened.

Carry on.

TAM

 

[JAStewart]

Yeah but at least we had to put some efforts into debunking them then.

Now they are simply a joke.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That an investigation should move in different directions with evolving hypothesis based first upon on observed events, and altered according to evidence as it becomes available (such as the Harrit paper) is standard procedure.

There was no evidence from the onset for a controlled demolition. By definition the truther movement violated the very procedure you're insisting the investigations skipped over. You saw a building collapse, and you guys assumed it had to be a controlled demolition based on spurious similarity.

You guys assume that buildings are absolutely invincible creations of man, while glossing over the details which set every building apart.

You guys haven't the slightest clue about materials, failures mechanisms, or construction for that matter.

Your own architects and engineers don't even know what column failure is to begin with.

You have bat **** crazy minorities who think magical lasers from the International Space station death star vaporized the buildings

You have bat **** crazy minorities who think the planes were faked.

You guys are incapable of quoting witness statements full context

You guys are incapable of quoting the very reports you criticize in full context.

You're critiquing us about following the scientific method? I've spent a year and a half on this forum, and it always fascinates me how conspiracy theorists of virtually any breed have the audacity to tell people what the scientific method entails when they themselves fail spectacularly to do so before even sitting through their theories. You're asking people to consider a position which vaporized (pun intended) before it even hit the atmosphere.

but its all just nonsense, according to you, in people's wacky minds - no one in power would ever abuse their position and people never lie or conspire against one another.

Yes it's all nonsense to begin with because the contentions of the truth movement from day one have been based on an illiteracy in multiple academic and professional fields. I for one find some of this illiteracy coming from professionals no less deplorable.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down. Pass it around. 98 bottles of beer on the wall.

I believe the truther version is...

99 bottles of beer on the wall. 99 bottles of beer.
Take one down, pass it around. 100 bottles of beer on the wall.

 

[JAStewart]

I have it on good authority this is the troother version:

99 bottles of beer in us all, 99 bottles of beer.
We get real drunk and make up junk, 99 bottles of beer!

 

[newton3376]

Remember the days when REAL truthers came here with REAL arguments...

wait...that never happened.

Carry on.

TAM

 

[atavisms]

..you have also said your theory is based on your un-informed opinion.

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

 

[Scott Sommers]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

My God! This is the most terrifying thing I have ever heard. News like this must be sweeping the country. It must have been on the lips of everyone in New York City this last week. I guess that's why it's such an important topic at the Republic primary. It's what they're been talking about at the primary debates in every election since 2001.

If I were you, I'd be standing on the street corner telling everyone I could. And if they don't listen, yell at them. Give them CDs with your important message. Post videos on Youtube. Just anything to get them to listen.

 

[cantonear1968]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

Free fall has been explained by NIST. What do you find scientifically erroneous with their conclusions?

No explosives. No recorded audio sounds of explosives going off. No seismic record to indicate explosives were used. No expulsions from the buildings until after the building starts to move.

Absolutely no signs that explosives were used in any of the buildings. You resurrected a 2 year old thread to have that explained to you once again.

 

[newton3376]

If I were you, I'd be standing on the street corner telling everyone I could. And if they don't listen, yell at them. Give them CDs with your important message. Post videos on Youtube. Just anything to get them to listen.

There is no need to....

* Stand on the street telling people
* Yell at people
* Give people CDs
* Post youtube videos


There is no need to do that when 9/11 Truth is such an important and visible topic in society.....the suggestions you are making would only apply to some fringe, nutcase cult that had almost no representation outside of internet discussion forums, video sharing sites, or conspiracy oriented communities.

And we all know how pervasive the 9/11 Truth movement is.....

 

[dafydd]

My God! This is the most terrifying thing I have ever heard. News like this must be sweeping the country. It must have been on the lips of everyone in New York City this last week. I guess that's why it's such an important topic at the Republic primary. It's what they're been talking about at the primary debates in every election since 2001.

If I were you, I'd be standing on the street corner telling everyone I could. And if they don't listen, yell at them. Give them CDs with your important message. Post videos on Youtube. Just anything to get them to listenlaugh.

ftfy

 

[Mr. Skinny]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics ! And all of engineering history as precedence. freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

Holy cow! They didn't teach me this stuff when I got my engineering degree!

Should I ask for my money back?

 

[BStrong]

it is not "my theory" but the well documented features of these events that do not nearly jive with the explanations offered to account for them.

And it is not my 'un-informed opinion' but the laws of physics !
And all of engineering history as precedence.

freefall in wtc7 means there were no supports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
where do you reckon they went??


-pardon my late reply ^^

My secondary MOS in the Army was 89D - Explosive Ordnance Disposal - and after having handled, used and rendered safe every type of explosive and explosive device you can imagine (and several you probably can't) my expert opinion is that there were no explosives involved with 9/11.