High energy explosvies and tertiary blast waves

[Craig4]

So Liberty, I take it that's a no on the explosive residue.

 

[Edx]

You see absolutely no value in expertise? I mean, you honestly believe that an educated and experienced dentist is no better at his chosen field of study than someone who spends several hours scouring Google?

We all know thats not what he is saying. Liberty is telling you why he can ignore any opinion of anyone he doesnt like no matter what expertise they may hold, unless they happen to agree with them of course and then expertise is important. It all boils down to this... 911 was such a crazy time for everyone it makes experts turn stupid. So if he asks experts what they think about 911 conspiracies or whatever else you want him to ask, he can just say that they are so damaged by 911 they don't know what they are saying. Therefore, he can ignore it. See? Makes perfect sense

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You are on ignore after this.

Buddies? you even called them my "truther friends" before... Go back and read the quote and stop being an dishonest forum troll that only wants to pick a fight. I asked him about demolition charges, and he responded with "Very high explosvie loads". Since when do very high explosvie loads and demolition charges not destroy steel columns, walls, etc...

Who said that this terrorist attack was a regular demolition?. Obviously they wanted some casualties, and thats why alot of people never escaped, they died from the bombs and the fires. When you are very close to very high explosive loads, inside a building, you will probably not survive, either beacuse of the explosion or beacuse that you get trapped. The only ones that would survive are the ones that had some distance between themselves and the explosvies, and they would not be expected to have any primary injuries, but some of these survivors from the explosions, had alot of injuries and had to undergo multiple operations on their bodies, that could be injuries from a tertiary blast effect. A building will not collapse because of some demolition charges going off, you can detonate some strategic charges, to prevent people from escaping, and to pre-weaken the building, and test that everything is working, before the total demo of the building. Hard to figure this out by yourself?.... The people that the CIA hired for the job, probably took great pleasure in detonating the charges, they really like to murder people if you didnt know... Just ask the nazi Klaus barbie (if you meet him in hell) what kind of operations he did for the CIA in the 80s, they have no remorse for children and women....

So if your explosives are real then why were the thousands of tons of thermite (that Chris7 insists he has proven were present) necessary?

Why use thermite as well if you are going to use explosives?

 

[twinstead]

We all know thats not what he is saying. Liberty is telling you why he can ignore any opinion of anyone he doesnt like no matter what expertise they may hold, unless they happen to agree with them of course and then expertise is important. It all boils down to this... 911 was such a crazy time for everyone it makes experts turn stupid. So if he asks experts what they think about 911 conspiracies or whatever else you want him to ask, he can just say that they are so damaged by 911 they don't know what they are saying. Therefore, he can ignore it. See? Makes perfect sense

Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing

 

[Sunstealer]

So if your explosives are real then why were the thousands of tons of thermite (that Chris7 insists he has proven were present) necessary?

Why use thermite as well if you are going to use explosives?

This is something we should be doing more of, namely putting one truther with one theory up against another with a different theory.

I would love to see a moderated "truther only" thread so we could see them thread out their ideas amongst themselves. Unfortunately there are many debunkers who just cannot resist putting their oar in. Just look at the threads asking truthers a question in the OP; the first 5 pages are stupid debunkers derailing the thread.

 

[000063]

Truthers, like many sophists, are incapable of calling each other incorrect. In absentia, yes, and they will back each other up, but they're nowhere to be found when one is obviously wrong. I prefer the side in an argument where people are willing to correct each other.

 

[Liberty]

Edx wrote: Here's some more sources for Liberty to ignore

R.Mackey wrote: This is why quote-mining is dangerous. Assuming you did in fact "learn" that, rather than scouring the entire universe to find some quote that seemed to vindicate your poor word choice, all you've done is replicated someone else's error. Happens a lot.

Quote-mining? dangerous?...

It was years ago i read about the tertiary blast effect of explosvies, just days ago i started to read about it again, since i was told how you cant escape detonations without any primary blast injuries... The only term for this blast effect i could find was "blast wave" as i showed you, are you claming i made the term up myself now?, you do realise that this wont score you any points that you so desperately want, it only looks cheap. I actully found some that only mention "blast wind" later on when i did key searches, still confused if all these authors has got it wrong or not.

R.Mackey wrote: So, in other words, you've got nothing. Just quote-mines.

Whatever you say is true! as always. Every witness i use, is a witness that cant be explained away with falling debris, the towers collapsing, gas explosions etc. They all describe what matches the effect of high energy explosives. What you haft to do after reading those testimonies, is to find out what the probability is for explosvies being used in the towers, and you will find that it is very likely, we basically know who put the bombs in the buildings. Whe you see the information your religious belief system kicks in, and this is where your politically incorrect emotions enters the picture and makes your understanding of the facts very cloudy.

R.Mackey wrote: I only wanted to address the "experts" you quoted. What they had to say was correct. It just doesn't have any bearing on our problem, and does not support your conclusion.

You dont debunk your hobby debunker friends when they spread lies. And it does support my conclusion. Again, your argument is flawed, if you cant demonstrate why the people that escaped should be badly injured by explosvies if there were explsovies planted in the building, then you have no case, you just have made up claims.

R.Mackey wrote: This paragraph is nothing but your own fantasy. The lobby damage in WTC 7 was caused by the collapse of the Towers, not "Explosives." At no time was there any shockwave at the WTC, not in any structure or at any point. There was nobody killed in WTC 7, despite what you believe.

Of Course it was, if you say so!... The only thing you could mean by this is that the damage was done by falling debris, because the dust winds etc after the collapse did noting to the lobby as we can see on video. To think that debris hitting the building destroyed the lobby is just ridiculous, the plane impact did no damage to the lobby of the towers, besides the jet fuel explosion. You deny witnesses because they dont fit your belief system, witnesses saw and heard multiple explosions, shockwaves, flashes, windows exploding all around them on the street etc before the collapse...

You say Al-qaida was behind the attack correct?, well then you are talking about your government... Al-qaida is run by the U.S. and foregin intelligencie agenices from countries like Saudia arabia, Algeria etc. Go and read some books or travel to a country where CIA funded death squads raped and killed civilians and installed the drug cartels into power with the green light from the U.S.. Lets begin with a very clear understanding, that you have no clue what goes on in the world, and that your opinion of what happened on 911 is worthless. Then look at the facts of 911 and all the players involved, and your politically incorrect emotions will hopefully go away and not block you from seeing the facts and being open to alternative explanations that are more credible. But first you probably haft to crush your ego. Try a flotation tank after your studying, it will help you being "comfortable" with the reality that your government would love to murder you, its great for the process of becoming an adult with responsibilitys... Good luck...

 

[Sabretooth]

Good gawd.

You're delusional. Off to ignore you go.

 

[NoahFence]

[qimg]http://www.resonancesocialmedia.com/Portals/124635/images/debunked2-300x2201.jpg[/qimg]



Quote-mining? dangerous?...

It was years ago i read about the tertiary blast effect of explosvies, just days ago i started to read about it again, since i was told how you cant escape detonations without any primary blast injuries... The only term for this blast effect i could find was "blast wave" as i showed you, are you claming i made the term up myself now?, you do realise that this wont score you any points that you so desperately want, it only looks cheap. I actully found some that only mention "blast wind" later on when i did key searches, still confused if all these authors has got it wrong or not.



Whatever you say is true! as always. Every witness i use, is a witness that cant be explained away with falling debris, the towers collapsing, gas explosions etc. They all describe what matches the effect of high energy explosives. What you haft to do after reading those testimonies, is to find out what the probability is for explosvies being used in the towers, and you will find that it is very likely, we basically know who put the bombs in the buildings. Whe you see the information your religious belief system kicks in, and this is where your politically incorrect emotions enters the picture and makes your understanding of the facts very cloudy.



You dont debunk your hobby debunker friends when they spread lies. And it does support my conclusion. Again, your argument is flawed, if you cant demonstrate why the people that escaped should be badly injured by explosvies if there were explsovies planted in the building, then you have no case, you just have made up claims.



Of Course it was, if you say so!... The only thing you could mean by this is that the damage was done by falling debris, because the dust winds etc after the collapse did noting to the lobby as we can see on video. To think that debris hitting the building destroyed the lobby is just ridiculous, the plane impact did no damage to the lobby of the towers, besides the jet fuel explosion. You deny witnesses because they dont fit your belief system, witnesses saw and heard multiple explosions, shockwaves, flashes, windows exploding all around them on the street etc before the collapse...

You say Al-qaida was behind the attack correct?, well then you are talking about your government... Al-qaida is run by the U.S. and foregin intelligencie agenices from countries like Saudia arabia, Algeria etc. Go and read some books or travel to a country where CIA funded death squads raped and killed civilians and installed the drug cartels into power with the green light from the U.S.. Lets begin with a very clear understanding, that you have no clue what goes on in the world, and that your opinion of what happened on 911 is worthless. Then look at the facts of 911 and all the players involved, and your politically incorrect emotions will hopefully go away and not block you from seeing the facts and being open to alternative explanations that are more credible. But first you probably haft to crush your ego. Try a flotation tank after your studying, it will help you being "comfortable" with the reality that your government would love to murder you, its great for the process of becoming an adult with responsibilitys... Good luck...

What you haft to do after reading

For the love of God, it's have. What you have to do. Haft isn't a word.

 

[R.Mackey]

Agreed. This is the point at which rational conversation is now demonstrably impossible.

I only got involved because our new friend actually did mention some experts (assuming he didn't copy their comments off the Internet), which is good practice, and more Truthers should do this. However, he applied their comments incorrectly, hence I felt compelled to provide a more thorough explanation.

That useful phase of the conversation is now clearly over, unfortunately. I recommend as I have in the past that further argument will only serve to entrench his delusions. My participation ends now.

 

[tsig]

You're backtracking on your own claim. The victim we were discussing claims to have a wall blown into them, which knocked them down and causing injury not consistent with explosions. Then you post this:



Which is a completely different mechanism of injury. Tertiary blast injuries are those caused by a people being hurled by a blast wave into things...NOT things hurling into people.

So what is it you are trying to discuss here? You are not presenting evidence that supports your assertions.




I stopped reading your wall of text after this big, fat lie. You're basing your convictions on quote-mines and ignorance.

Yes, his links show that primary blast injuries are caused by the blast wave, secondary injuries are caused by having something blown int them and tertiary injuries are caused by the person being blown into something else.

ETA: I see it was done graphically upthread.

 

[Liberty]

Agreed. This is the point at which rational conversation is now demonstrably impossible.

I only got involved because our new friend actually did mention some experts (assuming he didn't copy their comments off the Internet), which is good practice, and more Truthers should do this. However, he applied their comments incorrectly, hence I felt compelled to provide a more thorough explanation.

That useful phase of the conversation is now clearly over, unfortunately. I recommend as I have in the past that further argument will only serve to entrench his delusions. My participation ends now.

So you confirm that you have no case, just made up claims.. I wonder how single detonations could harm everyone in those very large buildings, only some people on some floors, close to the denotations, would get badly injured, many would escape almost unhurt, and some with tertiary injuries and fire-related injuries etc. You haft to take every witness and then show where in the towers they where and if they felt any explosion or not, and then show why they should have been badly injured. You shouldnt make stuff upp, this again makes you lose your credibility, and you have showed this behaviour many times before.

 

[LSSBB]

Every witness i use, is a witness that cant be explained away with falling debris, the towers collapsing, gas explosions etc.

Nope, you're wrong. Try again.

 

[NoahFence]

So you confirm that you have no case, just made up claims.. I wonder how single detonations could harm everyone in those very large buildings, only some people on some floors, close to the denotations, would get badly injured, many would escape almost unhurt, and some with tertiary injuries and fire-related injuries etc. You haft to take every witness and then show where in the towers they where and if they felt any explosion or not, and then show why they should have been badly injured. You shouldnt make stuff upp, this again makes you lose your credibility, and you have showed this behaviour many times before.

Punctuation is your friend.


Haft is not a word.

 

[Edx]

So you confirm that you have no case, just made up claims..

Ryan said no such thing. He thinks you're too crazy and unreasonable to reply to and you are, you ignore everything anyone says (when you arent misrepresenting them) and then proclaim victory,

I gave you lots more sources showing you how wrong you are on top of the ones I had already provided on the previous thread and you STILL ignored all of them without comment JUST LIKE LAST TIME. You have so far ignored every single one of my points and issues I brought up against this, like you have done others. Being so unreasonable that no real discourse is possible is not a victory, Liberty.

 

[Liberty]

Punctuation is your friend.


Haft is not a word.

Conspiracy nuts often spell bad. Just put you off ignore to let you know this well researched fact!. English is not my first language, but i try. Back on ignore!

 

[NoahFence]

Conspiracy nuts often spell bad. Just put you off ignore to let you know this well researched fact!. English is not my first language, but i try. Back on ignore!

You really don't need to announce it like you just one-upped me or something.

It's meaningless.

 

[DGM]

It's meaningless.

You mean you're not hurt?

 

[332nd]

I dont care that much about anybodys opinion, not many people have studied 911, and most experts like this are simple human beings like everyone else that has bad judgment and lack any real critical thinking, we live in a very damaged society controlled mostly by oligarchs.

How would you know unless you ask? Is it not reasonable to think that since they are experts in effects of explosives that they would have researched if they had a suspicion that explosives were used?

911 is a big subject and i only respect the opinion of somebody who have truly researched it.

This isn't about 9/11 as a whole, its about a specific part of 9/11. Also, there are many people here who have researched it in great detail & your problem seems to be they don't agree with you.

I did ask a couple of questions regarding some basement explosions on 911, nothing else.

What did they say about that?

Why do you think someones opinion matters that much?.

Why do you think their opinion matters about blast waves as they have to do with injuries but not as they have to do with the towers collapsing?

You can find out the only right answer by yourself, then if 20 explosvies experts dont agree with you, then you know how they are all wrong.

Instead of questioning your own position like rational people.

Wouldn't it be nice being able to use logical thinking and not haft to rely on "experts"?. On 911, we see blast effects, that CAN be explained by very high explosives los, and that most likely in my opinion are explained with high energy explosvies. This is a fact, we dont need to ask any experts.

This was a lot of word salad when all you had to do was say "because they would've disagreed with what I want to believe."

 

[Sabretooth]