Norwegian scientist proposes new alternative theory

[Edx]

Love those portable goalposts. First, "There were no explosions!" Then, when it's pointed out (for the nth time) there were: "They were not the explosions you think they were!"

Its not moving, you just ignored 90% of my points. Why did you do that?

Explosions are common and expeted in fires, what about that do you have a problem with?

Explosions from EXPLOSIVE DETONATIONS a very different, such things were not observed on 911 especially not the kind required to do what truthers what which is to fling heavy steel around and so on.

Bedunkers think that firefighters wouldn't know the difference.

So where are all the firefighters that say there were explosives in the towers?

Where are all the firefighters that agree with a single thing you guys say about WTC7? Where are firefighters that disagree with a single thing "the official story" says about WTC7?

video re: concussive injuries WTC

The video title does not reflect what is in the video.

The title says "blast" but the presenter says they were thrown around by the explosion. It doesnt say they sustained blast injuries, you obviously don't know what blast injuries actually are ergo. You don't realise that if they were thrown around by explosives they would have very bad injuries consistent with explosives

 

[Edx]

And then, after admitting there were explosions, EdX tries to go back to his original tack of "There were no explosions!"

I never said there were no explosions, i said there were no explosions consistent with explosives and certainly not the HUGE amount of explosives you require.

COMPARE SOMETHING LIKE THIS:



TO THIS:



OR THIS ONE:



Notice the difference?

 

[ergo]

Explosions are common and expeted in fires, what about that do you have a problem with?

The part where you insist that there were none and/or they weren't heard by anyone. Even though they are "common" and "expected" in fires.

 

[ergo]

The title says "blast" but the presenter says they were thrown around by the explosion.

Because being "thrown around" by an explosion means there was no blast force.

 

[Edx]

Because being "thrown around" by an explosion means there was no blast force.

Tell me ergo, exactly how do you think you are "thrown around" by a high explosive? What do you imagine is creating that force?

You dont seem to understand that if you're close enough to a high explosive to be thrown around by one you're probably going to be mincemeat, if you happen to be lucky or just out of range, your ear drums probably will be. You don't just get thrown around by explosives, its not like the films. You're going to suffer a LOT of injuries you apparently have no understanding of.

The part where you insist that there were none and/or they weren't heard by anyone. Even though they are "common" and "expected" in fires

Why do you lie? I never said that there were no explosions heard on 911, I've said that several times now. Its just that explosions from explosives are very different from other kinds of explosions. You claim heavy steel was flung around during the collapse, sorry but we hear no sounds consistent with an explosive capable of achieving that. Therefore it could not physically have happened. No sound, no power.

Watch the video I gave you, people have even used the word explosion to refer to a steel crane collapsing. People use the word all the time to refer to things that were not bombs, even when they knew it wasnt a bomb before they said it. Im not just saying they are common in fires, its verifiably clear its common in fires the same way molten metal and molten steel reports are plentiful in normal fires as well. You hear explosion and conclude bomb, when it could be a hundred other things. When it comes down to it no one suffered any blast injuries and no videos picked up any sounds that suggest an explosive capable of doing what you claim they did.

 

[ergo]

(It's sometimes necessary just to ignore the idiocy.)


Video of a news report of concussive injuries from blast.

 

[Edx]

(It's sometimes necessary just to ignore the idiocy.)


Video of a news report of concussive injuries from blast.

You just ignored everything I said, good job. Once again this reporter does not talk about blast injuries.

Here is information on blast injuries, go learn about what they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_injury
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Blast-Injury.htm

If you're close enough to be thrown around, you're basically screwed.

 

[ergo]

Here is information on blast injuries, go learn about what they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_injury
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Blast-Injury.htm

I suggest you do your own reading.

 

[Edx]

I suggest you do your own reading.

Thats nice ergo, when you come up with an argument let me know. You fail to understand what blast injuries are or what this video shows, too bad.

 

[Miragememories]

If you're close enough to be thrown around, you're basically screwed.

I believe Hitler did remarkably well in that bunker assassination attempt.

A bit of solid shielding can provide a lot of protection.

MM

 

[Edx]

I believe Hitler did remarkably well in that bunker assassination attempt.

A bit of solid shielding can provide a lot of protection.

MM

Do you actually have any facts or just an obscure example? We know a lot about blast injuries right now, so there's no shortage of information. I even referenced some sources for you. If you're close enough to be thrown around by an explosive blast wave, especially one that you're claiming was so intense it was destroying heavy infastructure, then you're going to have a whole host of injuries, not just bumps and bruises from falling over. Truthers don't understand that, which is why they also reference people with burnt skin from fire balls as if that was an indicator of a high exploive, again, this is not an indicator of a high explosive at all.

 

[ergo]

We've discussed this already with the instances (and in most cases, lack of) barotrauma at the Murrah building bombing. EdX knows this.

No amount of evidence satisfies bedunkers on this issue. They'll say, on the one hand, no injuries from explosions were reported, then when you show them there were, they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives."

It's recess time with the schoolyard bullies. Moving goalposts.

 

[bill smith]

So he Norwegian is a fake ? He seemed to be well supported in the media though.

 

[Edx]

they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives."

Once again I never said that, if you're going to continue to lie over and over so openly about what I said then there's really no point continuing.

 

[twinstead]

We've discussed this already with the instances (and in most cases, lack of) barotrauma at the Murrah building bombing. EdX knows this.

No amount of evidence satisfies bedunkers on this issue. They'll say, on the one hand, no injuries from explosions were reported, then when you show them there were, they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives."

It's recess time with the schoolyard bullies. Moving goalposts.

Jesus, talk about irony. You make a career of hand waving away massive amounts of evidence, and you have the cajones to accuse US of not being satisfied with evidence. Seriously?

It must be some kind of joke.

 

[000063]

Bedunkers think that firefighters wouldn't know the difference.

Oddly enough, no firefighters on the scene reported explosives.

It's okay, we can all see you're trying to conflate explosions with explosives again.

I also note you take five points, distill them down to three, and even have to edit the third one. Odd.

 

[Edx]

Oddly enough, no firefighters on the scene reported explosives.

To be absolutely fair, there is 1 single firefighter that has. John Schroeder, but of course no one that was with him reports what he does and he doesn't, or didnt, know which tower fell first. ie. what he experienced was the collapse of the South tower. Dunno what he thinks now.

 

[Pardalis]

So he Norwegian is a fake ? He seemed to be well supported in the media though.

Why does it always have to be a false dichotomy with you. He could be simply mistaken.

 

[ergo]

they'll say, "nobody would survive explosions from real explosives."

Once again I never said that, if you're going to continue to lie over and over so openly about what I said then there's really no point continuing.

* yawn *

You dont seem to understand that if you're close enough to a high explosive to be thrown around by one you're probably going to be mincemeat

 

[beachnut]

* yawn *

Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

So you say these are due to explosives?


...

(It's sometimes necessary just to ignore the idiocy.)


Video of a news report of concussive injuries from blast.

No blast injuries, the people were pushed down by a blast of air from the collapse. An explosive blast causing injuries of broken bones would turn your brain to mush. Failure comes due to lack of knowledge. You will fail until you gain knowledge.

...