Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Clayton Moore said:
What is sadly hilarious is that they say no way the three buildings could have been rigged yet they insist that the buildings were able to demolish/pulverize themselves with force of their own mass.
Click to expand...

How do you think an explosive CD works?
 
Without leaving behind any visual, audio, or physical evidence whatsoever, apparently.
 
notheist said:
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...

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...

Luckily no speculation is required about whether they'd survive or not. There's a distinct lack of physical evidence that they were there to begin with. So based on that lack evidence we KNOW there were none there. Truthers can while about how funky they think the collapses are until the sky turn pink, they don't got the evidence and that just tough for them; Until they produce that evidence and stop spending days at the computer trolling other people for kicks they can continue whining.

They think cavemen didn't do it? Well they should have an easy time showing what Bin Laden lacked to get this thing going... They think explosives brought the buildings down? Wheres the melted column connections? Where's the blast trauma? Where's the det cord? Where's their 10,000 page engineering report? Where's the evidence?

Better yet why give them attention if they know they can't provide it?
 
Last edited:
I dont need any test, expert hack, or specialist, to tell me what is overtly obvious through direct observation and knowledge of the facts on the ground; that wtc 1 2 & 7 could ONLY have been brought down through the use of pre-planted explosives. This is determined by the facts no one disputes because they are so well documented. (they get ignored and dismissed but there they remain)
They include: the speed and symmetry of 1,2&7's destruction. 1 & 2's complete annihilation with astonishing explosive lateral energies (for what are told were gravity-driven collapses on an intact (below the point of impact) structures, the pulverized concrete, 100 day fires with excessive temps (2800f over a week later? thats fact, look it up!), 1000 missing bodies, wtc 7s rapid and symmetrical implosion, molten metal (steel and iron) and so on and so forth/. ALL (as well as a host of other FACTS) conclusively indicate the use of additional energy sources. (aka explosives)

Same Chris Mohr? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg (If I were, I'd keep quiet about anything technical and (try at least to) focus on simple common sense. cheers

**here's a little fact (re wtc7) for deniers, never has a skyscraper come down in a manner consistent with controlled demolition and not been one.
 
Last edited:
actually, that these events occurred is not in question.
The goal is how to best explain what we know happened and explosive demolition (knowing how many and of what kind is irrelevant for this purpose) is the ONLY logical conclusion.
 
But you have to know what type or types would produce the effects seen on 9/11 in order to determine that ED occurred. There's a difference between being knocked down by a moped, being hit by a car, and being pasted by a bus. In this case, no metaphorical vehicle could produce the injuries in question, and there are several physical and logistical hurdles to overcome, such as keeping the explosives in the building when several of the beams they were on were knocked clear out of it by the plane impacts. Which beams would do that is, literally, impossible to predict, even by 2012 computers, and I'll go into detail if you're willing.

You're using ED as a premise, not a conclusion. Saying "It was explosives and that's all we need to know!" is, by definition, not the best explanation, even working under the assumption that explosives were present. The best explanation would include what type of explosives.


plague311 said:
I see a lot of lip flapping and I hear you saying Oystein is lying about what he does, but I never see you explain what he does. So what is it Ergo? You know so much about what his job title, and duties are, how about you break them down for us?

If not, move on. You've been shown up here.
Click to expand...
It's his favorite trick. Keep insisting a "bedunker" doesn't understand what they're talking about, and never, ever explain why, while making snide personal remarks. Of course, what's actually going on is that he can't understand what they're saying, or his bias won't let him accept it, so he rationalizes it as the flaw being on their end. And the reason he does so is that literally almost every single time he sticks his neck out and make an assertion, it's wrong, like he is right now.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
actually, that these events occurred is not in question.
The goal is how to best explain what we know happened and explosive demolition (knowing how many and of what kind is irrelevant for this purpose) is the ONLY logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

:crazy:

They spew bs like this and then they wonder why they get called crazy...
 
Last edited:
You dont claim explosives were involved// You believe wtc7 did what it did, a a result of office fire..
Did you see the building before it came down? There are too many examples of worse & longer-lasting fires in steel-framed highrise buildings, to imagine that this http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo -along w/all the other anomalies were just the results of anyhting but demolition.

There is overwhelming evidence of explosions all over the place in the recordings made that day. (Of course some would be expected, -that does not dismiss this level.. those debris fields and so on.

Please. Wake up. dont see how anyone who has looked closely at the facts could come to that conclusion,, but then again 50% of my countrymen believe in young earth creationism, -sigh-
 
atavisms said:
You dont claim explosives were involved// You believe wtc7 did what it did, a a result of office fire..
Did you see the building before it came down? There are too many examples of worse & longer-lasting fires in steel-framed highrise buildings, to imagine that this http://www.youtube.com/user/Xenomorph911WTC#p/u/45/nqbUkThGlCo -along w/all the other anomalies were just the results of anyhting but demolition.

There is overwhelming evidence of explosions all over the place in the recordings made that day. (Of course some would be expected, -that does not dismiss this level.. those debris fields and so on.

Please. Wake up. dont see how anyone who has looked closely at the facts could come to that conclusion,, but then again 50% of my countrymen believe in young earth creationism, -sigh-
Click to expand...
offtopic.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
actually, that these events occurred is not in question.
The goal is how to best explain what we know happened and explosive demolition (knowing how many and of what kind is irrelevant for this purpose) is the ONLY logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

You've been here before, to just blatently dismiss reasoned opposition could reasonably be interpreted as just trying to incite anger in others, especially when you have seen the counter - arguments to your position and have been unable to "logically" dismissed them. This behavior is just tantamount to trollery.
 
atavisms said:
I dont need any test, expert hack, or specialist,
Click to expand...

ie Don't confuse me with the facts. My uneducated opinion trumps all science and evidence... we get it. LOL


**here's a little fact (re wtc7) for deniers, never has a skyscraper come down in a manner consistent with controlled demolition and not been one.
Click to expand...

Well said. Since neither WTC 1, 2 nor 7 came down 'in a manner consistent with controlled demolition', then we can safely conclude THEY WEREN'T CD's.
To be consistent with CD, they'd have to exhibit a number of characteristics which THEY DO NOT.

1) No loud sequential explosions at collapse
2) No bright flashes of explosive squibs on exterior columns and structure
3) Large, uncontrolled fires which would destroy most explosive charges randomly
4) No evidence on even one piece of steel examined consistent with explosive CD


So, none of the empirical evidence is consistent with CD. You're correct - the WTC buildings were NOT destroyed by CD. Thank you for playing.
 
atavisms said:
There is overwhelming evidence of explosions all over the place in the recordings made that day.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and meaningless. No controlled demolition in history has every involved random explosions throughout the day in various random locations.

Never. Again this evidence destroys the case for controlled demolition, especially the idea of being 'consistent' with controlled demolition.

Remember, the definition of the word consistent includes 'not self-contradictory'. Lack of the key features consistent with CD is by definition 'contradictory' to CD.

You probably won't even understand this.
 
There is overwhelming evidence of explosions all over the place in the recordings made that day. (Of course some would be expected, -that does not dismiss this level.. those debris fields and so on.
Click to expand...

All over the place? All day long?
 
Further internal inconsistency of 9/11 Truther claims is that falling inside a building footprint is a clear sign of CD; yet as atavisms wrote, falling OUTSIDE a building footprint is ALSO a clear sign of CD (remember the alleged explosive ejections of material?).

The argument is internally contradictory and inconsistent and fails on those grounds alone.
 
This is definitely off topic. Can atavism's derail be split off to a more apropriate thread? Such as this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164094?

I'll make a suggestion to the mods to do so. There's nothing wrong with the topic (well, other than the fact that it's rehasing a 2006 myth :rolleyes:), so it doesn't deserve to be AAH'd. But at the same time, it doesn't belong here.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Trutherism: When it doesn't stick the first time, throw it against the wall again and again. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Not every post is directed at you personally..(there;s a name for that,w hen people think everything is about them)

'Trutherism"I like - Like a new school of philosophy whose central tenet is the requirement that there be an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence to support one's claim.

If it didnt 'stick' I wouldnt encounter people almost weekly who learn the truth for the first time by seeing the collapse of wtc7 -wondering why the heck it was kept from them by the corporate press.

The truth is disturbing, -I imagine, like Nazi atrocities to many Germans at the time..'ummm, rather not think 'bout it' but how bout that game, or film, or play, or meal. Most who do realize it respond with, 'Thats messed up but It wasnt my family why should I care?' 'I dont care even if it is true, -the world is filled with such atrocities' and so on.. and then 'what are we gonna d for dinner?' Thats why people like Jim Hoffman, Steven E Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and so on, are heroes and will be remembered that way some day. (The way Ho Chi Minh is remembered thus today (as a liberator),.. During the Vietnam war he was the evil communist rebel.
People (not all) are so narrow-minded and short-sighted/

I wish you all increased knowledge and well-being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom