Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

DGM said:
I truly hope you're not holding your breath (rhetorical question).
Click to expand...

Urrr - that's not a question :D

DGM said:
Did you notice how fast he back paddled when I challenged him to "put his money where his mouth is"?
Click to expand...

No. I have him on ignore...

DGM said:
He a toy to play with, nothing more.
Click to expand...

...but since my girl friend is away tonight, I am slightly bored and reading a couple of those hidden posts anyway :p
 
Oystein said:
No. I have him on ignore...
Click to expand...
But, then you miss so many "Stundie" moments

Oystein said:
...but since my girl friend is away tonight, I am slightly bored and reading a couple of those hidden posts anyway :p
Click to expand...

And your reading this and not off to the pub (bar, tavern or whatever it's called in Germany)?

Someday I'll have to explain " while the cats away" to you (you might not want this considering I'm divorced).


:D
 
A ficus tree fell over in Miami today in what witnesses describe as an explosion!

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21004585199993/

It is reported that Police will be investigating this incident for the use of explosives at the base of this large tree. More details coming soon!*


*In all seriousness hopefully the people injured by this thing falling over pull through :(
 
Last edited:
[delete]

Mixed up an active and dead thread again. Stupid sleep deprivation.
 
shure said:
In this thread it would be nice if we can omit WTC demolitions, no planes anywhere, fake phone calls, fake hijackers, mossad did it, jesuits did it, and whatever other stupid stuff that we all know is not true.
Click to expand...

Um... sorry, you KNOW that WTC demolitions are not true? How do you "know" this? What theory are you proposing in its stead?

Sorry, but I'm not going to allow such an offhand comment to be tossed out casually like that, as if it's common knowledge. Unless you have a credible theory to explain the loss of 90% structural resistance of the three towers on that day, you can't make these kinds of claims. Do you?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Um... sorry, you KNOW that WTC demolitions are not true? How do you "know" this? What theory are you proposing in its stead?
Click to expand...

Yes, ergo, we do know.

We know explosives can't survive this:

wtc_impact2.jpg


If they collapsed immediately, perhaps, just perhaps, you people would have a leg to stand on.

But they stood for an hour, meaning whatever explosives were in the building, would have to survive that.

Impossible.

With truthers implying that is possible, no - there can't be unity, because their theories come from fairy-tale land.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Yes, ergo, we do know.

We know explosives can't survive this.
Click to expand...

Based on what, exactly? Something you heard on TV?

If they collapsed immediately, perhaps, just perhaps, you people would have a leg to stand on.

But they stood for an hour, meaning whatever explosives were in the building, would have to survive that.

Impossible.
Click to expand...

Impossible? Again, based on what? Something you saw in a movie?
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Based on what, exactly? Something you heard on TV?
Click to expand...

The experience of professionals and the knowledge that "fire triggers explosives." In other words, basic common sense. Maybe YOU need to fight logic because you can't accept reality, I'm good though.



SpringHallConvert said:
Impossible? Again, based on what? Something you saw in a movie?
Click to expand...

See above
 
ergo said:
Um... sorry, you KNOW that WTC demolitions are not true? How do you "know" this?
Click to expand...


The same way you "know" that they are true?

What theory are you proposing in its stead?
Click to expand...


Whoa. This is one of the most bizarre contortions I've seen a truther perform. Poor ergo has simply assumed that "the towers were demolished using explosives" is the status quo and that rejecting that fantasy creates some void that must be filled. That's adorable.

Sorry, but I'm not going to allow such an offhand comment to be tossed out casually like that, as if it's common knowledge.
Click to expand...


vgcats.jpg


You may be more intelligent than I give you credit for, ergo. This attempted reversal almost certainly requires a certain amount of forethought. Your skills are maturing significantly slower than folks like Anders Lindman and SpringHallConvert, but you're getting there...
 
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert said:
Based on what, exactly? Something you heard on TV?



Impossible? Again, based on what? Something you saw in a movie?
Click to expand...
Well based on what has happened in the past, explosives subjected to high heat will burn off or suffer a chemical change that renders them usless. And given the collapse started right at the fire floors you would have to assume that is where the explosives were.
 
ergo said:
Um... sorry, you KNOW that WTC demolitions are not true? How do you "know" this? What theory are you proposing in its stead?

We know that given the amount of work required to do a controlled demolition of a building a quarter of the size would be monumental and impossible to hide in a working office building I can say controlled demolition is for all intents and purposes impossible. We know fire can cause steel to weaken and has caused building collapse in the past, that is why steel frame buildings are required to be fireproofed. We know the WTC stared to fail right at the floors with the largest fires. Given the facts you would be a fool to place your money on the controlled demolition side of the debate.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Um... sorry, you KNOW Unless you have a credible theory to explain the loss of 90% structural resistance of the three towers on that day, you can't make these kinds of claims. Do you?
Click to expand...

So where do you get this 90% loss from? Just saying it does not make it true.
 
notheist said:
We know that given the amount of work required to do a controlled demolition of a building a quarter of the size would be monumental and impossible to hide in a working office building I can say controlled demolition is for all intents and purposes impossible.
Click to expand...

So where do you get this from? Just saying it does not make it true.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Based on what, exactly? Something you heard on TV?



Impossible? Again, based on what? Something you saw in a movie?
Click to expand...

Tell you what. We'll put some explosives in a shed, set fire to it and you sit next to it for an hour. ( Just a thought experiment)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom