H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
As I stated earlier in this thread, Im undecided. His silliness seems surreal but is consistent with his inflated ego.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Common Sense
- Thread starter uk_dave
- Start date
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
But he finds everything incredulous!
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
Haha!
I'm not avoiding anything buddy. Unlike you, I think over and research my responses before I post.
The Irony of YOUR post is that you failed to answer my questions and demand me to answer yours. Nice.
Caught onto my games? That's hilarious. Especially considering it was you that changed the subject to WTC7.
There are a couple of workers who described construction work. Those are the likes of William Rodriguez and Scott Forbes. There were thousands of people in those buildings at 2 report unusual activity?
William reported construction work on the 34th floor and a power down.
Scott reported dust and the power down plus work on the 98th floor but also claimed it was entirely empty.
So that's 2/50,000 that saw unusual activity which, in reality, was only unusual to them.
The amount of 'unusual activity' that would need to occur to set up a controlled demolition that involves a 'demolition wave' that manages to bring down 110 stories is way too much to keep secret.
They would have to hide everything. That includes during setup and after setup.
There was no where near enough time in this 26 hour power down to setup a controlled demolition.
As for 'shifting workers' and placing charges when they aren't at work... that's just ridiculous. You would then have to deal with:
* Tower security
* Bomb sniffing dogs (Not ALL were removed)
* Security Cameras
* Keeping workers mouths shut (demolition placers)
And a whole lot more.
No one reported unusual activity lasting long enough to set up and hide a controlled demolition.
And the fires that caused all this smoke:
Detonation cord is used in controlled demolitions. It burns at thousands of feet per second.
If some of this cord had ignited - the whole thing would have gone up.
Another reason charges would have to had survived the fire is because they would need to go off simultaneously to bring the building down in a controlled fashion. If they went off randomly the building would have failed in certain areas faster then others and caused all sorts of problems.
WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from the impact point. If there were charges here - they would have been prematurely by the plane impact and subsequent fireball causing the building to collapse the second the plane exploded. That wouldn't have looked good would it?
You should read what Popular Mechanics has to say about the seismographs:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
You must prove to me that what we can see in your picture cannot be caused by the effects of a progressive collapse and that they are caused by explosive devices. You haven't done that.
Again, refer to the points I made at the top of this post.
The amount of time and manpower that would be required to cause that effect would need THOUSANDS of explosives to the point of one on each column! That could not go unnoticed leading up to 9/11 and would require an enormous amount of manpower and there for complacency!
No one has claimed to have worked on the 9/11 demolition operation and no one has reported seeing placed charges, altered structural features such as exposed columns etc.
No one claims that "I saw a bomb go off" or "I saw an explosive charge". Not one person. Some people say "It sounded like a bomb" but none have said "I saw a bomb"
Read these:
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Firefighters hear explosions
And by that I mean actually read them.
Read what I posted. Actually READ IT.
I'm not avoiding anything buddy. Unlike you, I think over and research my responses before I post.
The Irony of YOUR post is that you failed to answer my questions and demand me to answer yours. Nice.
Caught onto my games? That's hilarious. Especially considering it was you that changed the subject to WTC7.
There are a couple of workers who described construction work. Those are the likes of William Rodriguez and Scott Forbes. There were thousands of people in those buildings at 2 report unusual activity?
William reported construction work on the 34th floor and a power down.
Scott reported dust and the power down plus work on the 98th floor but also claimed it was entirely empty.
So that's 2/50,000 that saw unusual activity which, in reality, was only unusual to them.
The amount of 'unusual activity' that would need to occur to set up a controlled demolition that involves a 'demolition wave' that manages to bring down 110 stories is way too much to keep secret.
They would have to hide everything. That includes during setup and after setup.
There was no where near enough time in this 26 hour power down to setup a controlled demolition.
As for 'shifting workers' and placing charges when they aren't at work... that's just ridiculous. You would then have to deal with:
* Tower security
* Bomb sniffing dogs (Not ALL were removed)
* Security Cameras
* Keeping workers mouths shut (demolition placers)
And a whole lot more.
No one reported unusual activity lasting long enough to set up and hide a controlled demolition.
Well there's these fires:
And the fires that caused all this smoke:
Detonation cord is used in controlled demolitions. It burns at thousands of feet per second.
If some of this cord had ignited - the whole thing would have gone up.
Another reason charges would have to had survived the fire is because they would need to go off simultaneously to bring the building down in a controlled fashion. If they went off randomly the building would have failed in certain areas faster then others and caused all sorts of problems.
WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from the impact point. If there were charges here - they would have been prematurely by the plane impact and subsequent fireball causing the building to collapse the second the plane exploded. That wouldn't have looked good would it?
There was seismic data recorded on 9/11. Thanks for pointing that out because it shows no indication of a controlled demolition.
You should read what Popular Mechanics has to say about the seismographs:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
The burden of proof is on you. I am saying that there is no evidence visually that explosive devices are going off.
You must prove to me that what we can see in your picture cannot be caused by the effects of a progressive collapse and that they are caused by explosive devices. You haven't done that.
Again, refer to the points I made at the top of this post.
The amount of time and manpower that would be required to cause that effect would need THOUSANDS of explosives to the point of one on each column! That could not go unnoticed leading up to 9/11 and would require an enormous amount of manpower and there for complacency!
No one has claimed to have worked on the 9/11 demolition operation and no one has reported seeing placed charges, altered structural features such as exposed columns etc.
You have no proof that these people who heard things that sounded "like an explosion" are explosions let alone explosive devices.
No one claims that "I saw a bomb go off" or "I saw an explosive charge". Not one person. Some people say "It sounded like a bomb" but none have said "I saw a bomb"
Read these:
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Firefighters hear explosions
And by that I mean actually read them.
Facts.
Wow, you must get all the ladies. Please! Don't tough talk me any more!
Read what I posted. Actually READ IT.
28th Kingdom, would you please provide evidence that explosives were actually planted in the towers?
-Show how much explosive material and det cord would be required for the demolition, according to your detailed calculations which I'm sure you'll show us.
-Provide evidence that those materials were covertly placed in the towers. You have already been shown that a number of companies had employees present 24/7 in the towers, so please explain how the planting of the explosives was hidden from them.
-Explain why no one noticed the massive amounts of explosives and det cord on the structural supports.
-Explain, with calculations, why you think the top of the tower should have tilted over to the side and toppled off, as you seem to believe it should have if explosives were not used, as you claim.
Stop claiming to use "common sense" and provide real evidence for a change.
-Show how much explosive material and det cord would be required for the demolition, according to your detailed calculations which I'm sure you'll show us.
-Provide evidence that those materials were covertly placed in the towers. You have already been shown that a number of companies had employees present 24/7 in the towers, so please explain how the planting of the explosives was hidden from them.
-Explain why no one noticed the massive amounts of explosives and det cord on the structural supports.
-Explain, with calculations, why you think the top of the tower should have tilted over to the side and toppled off, as you seem to believe it should have if explosives were not used, as you claim.
Stop claiming to use "common sense" and provide real evidence for a change.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Perhaps tuition is a problem. Should we take up a collection?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Tirdun
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 637
Seen the stupid video, thanks.
You are suggesting that Larry Silverstein, Lawyer and Real Estate mogul is:
A) Well versed in the terminology of building demolition crews?
B) Dumb enough to reveal that the building was destroyed intentionally during an interview, knowing that there was certainly going to be an insurance investigation?
C) Knowledgeable about a plot to smash buildings with planes and space beam weapons and then chose to set off a controlled demolition
To undercut the standard CT nonsense:
A) Pull it = Firefighter lingo for "get the [8] out", not demolition lingo for blow it up. I don't know any demo crews, but I do know firefighters.
B) The quote wasn't some slip, he very deliberately says the line. Further, he stated later that he knew full well what it meant in Firefighting Terms as he was discussing the potential for more loss of life.
C) ?!?
Your posts reveal one of two possibilities.
1- You are a troll throwing out every bit of nonsense that you can lay finger on just to rile up the board. This wins you an ignore.
2- You are a CT diehard zealot who has blinders on to any possibility that the OT is correct in the slightest detail. You would argue that the events happened on September 12th if you possibly could. This wins you an ignore.
Are you saying that bigfoot planted the explosives that destroyed the towers?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
SHHHHHHHHHH!
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
No, not at all!
Bigfoot was the lookout. Nessie planted the explosives.
I'm just saying we can't rule it out, that's all.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Once again, 28K, with his massive intellect and brain the size of a planet, has demonstrated that he has TOTALLY failed to grasp the point of this thread...that common sense cannot be used to analyze issues this technical and this complex.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0
I think he illustrated that point rather well, as a matter of fact.
Hmm, I was wondering, how about if the charges were activated by timers? Or exploded by some kind of radio signal? In that case the explosives could have been hidden as single units without detenation cable needing to be present.
I'm guessing such a system would not be accurate enough (not all charges would go at exactly the same time or at all), and this would cause the building to collapse incorrectly.
I'm guessing such a system would not be accurate enough (not all charges would go at exactly the same time or at all), and this would cause the building to collapse incorrectly.
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
When the "pull it" phrase was used, the safety evacuation was the immediate response. The collapse happened hours later.
In addition to the talk of human life in the previous sentence, and the undisputed use by firemen in relation to getting people out of dangerous areas, this points towards the word referencing safety, not destruction.
The only time 'pull' is used in demolition, is for cable demolition.
Last edited:
Ah, but we can infer evidence against bigfoot and nessie.
1. Bigfoot stinks, and stinks so badly that most "sightings" are more like "smellings." See here. There were no reports of horrid stenches during the days before September 11, 2001 in the WTC. We can therefore conclude that a) Bigfoot was not present or b) Bigfoot has finally discovered Ban roll-on and bath tubs. I tend towards (a,) as the roll-on would have to be applied over all of bigfoot's body - which would be cost prohibitive for a woods creature with no known income.
2. Nessie is by all accounts an aquatic creature, and quite large. Assuming Nessie to be a lung breather (a supposition supported by its demonstrated need to come to the surface of Loch Ness,) it would have been capable of surviving without a water tank. However, it would likely have been incapacitated and immobile. Nessie is an aquatic animal, and thus swims. With no water it cannot swim. Greenpeace invariably shows up to aid stranded aquatic animals by keeping their skin wet and transporting them back to their natural habitat. There are no reports of Greenpeace activity on or prior to September 11, 2001 at the WTC. We can therefore conclude that a) Nessie was not present and so did not plant the explosives or b) the news agencies were all in on the conspiracy and supressed reports of Greenpeace transporting Nessie back to Scottland. I tend towards (a,) as Greenpeace would surely have raised a ruckus if one of its publicity seeking actions didn't receive any attention from the media.
BTW:
Given the reported stench in New York over the last couple of days, I wonder why the CTs haven't begun asking what the covert bigfoot agents have been doing.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Nah. Who needs tuition when you've got intuition?