Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[NoahFence]

What traces of explosives would you expect to find in the rubble of a building that has been reduced literally to dust? Where not even something the size of a phone remained.

Copper residue from the casings, detcord, explosive residue, you know, stuff found at every controlled demolition site.

 

[ergo]

I guess you just glanced over the part where I explain why the masses feel there were no explosives. No surprise.

Ah, Noah speaks for "the masses". Where have we heard this before?

I'll give you the cliffs notes version, again:

For explosives:
Shocked eyewitness testimony, fog-of-war similes, outright lies by the truth movement.

Against explosives:
Shocked eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, common sense.

Get it?

There's nothing to get. Your argument can as easily be used to discount the against position. It's a stupid argument. Get it?

And I have yet to see any bedunker actually source and refute a so-called "lie" by the truth movement, so that's just your ass talking.

 

[ergo]

Copper residue from the casings, detcord, explosive residue, you know, stuff found at every controlled demolition site.

 

[A W Smith]

Evidence of explosives is also in the description provided by witnesses, in the manner in which the floors blew out, according to them, in the pressure waves described, in the expulsion of tiny bone fragments laterally onto neighbouring buildings, and in the noise they created.

What traces of explosives would you expect to find in the rubble of a building that has been reduced literally to dust? Where not even something the size of a phone remained.

The green outlined text above is your claim for evidence of explosives, the red outlined text above does not meet the burden to be considered "evidence" for explosives.

Count the objects that are larger than a phone in this image. Go ahead.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Evidence of explosives is also in the description provided by witnesses............

Witnesses aren't explosives experts. Nice try, but quote mining them just makes you look too desprite.

 

[ergo]

The green outlined text above is your claim for evidence of explosives, the red outlined text above does not meet the burden to be considered "evidence" for explosives.

The witness testimonies largely corroborate each other. You have neither refuted any of this--beyond bedunker speculation--nor provided any evidence against.

Count the objects that are larger than a phone in this image. Go ahead.

You mean the steel beams? Or should I get a microscope to examine your photo?

Wtf.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Oral histories of the FDNY explaining the explosions:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

"All you hear is a rumbling in the street. It sounded like an earthquake. When I was a younger kid, I was in an earthquake and it felt like the same exact feeling. I looked, and I could see the antenna on the top of the roof coming straight down." - FIREFIGHTER JOHN AMATO

Not only did they hear explosions, but they felt the ground shake. As FF Amato explains, it sounded like an earthquake. But you know that there was no earthquakes in NYC.

"I just remember we were -- initially we were
out by the street and they started having jumpers, so
they all kind of moved back towards the parking garage,
towards the building, so nothing would come down on
us.

We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15
minutes and then I just remember there was just an
explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up
these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the
way around like a belt, all these explosions." - FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI

FF Banaciski was so preoccupied with the jumpers that him and other FF's didn't realize that the 2nd plane had impacted the 2nd building. So, what does his testimony have to do with explosives? Absolutely nothing!

"I believe we went up the A stairwell. It was pretty congested with civilians coming down. We kept telling the civilians to stay to the right, we're moving up to the left. We made it to about the 16th floor when the south tower collapsed.

We did not know that. This is all hindsight, of course. The only thing that I can recall that happened was there was a big whoosh of air that pushed from the south up to the north. The building moved a little bit, nothing out of the ordinary, I guess." - FIREFIGHTER ALBERT BARRY

And still nothing to suggest explosives!

"I remember just hearing an explosion that basically I can't describe the sound of. It was actually the second plane crashing in. We were on the side, we were on the south side of the south tower when it came down -- I mean when the plane crashed in. I just basically said to myself something is not right here. It didn't feel right to me. I told my boss, just I said to him this doesn't feel right. We don't belong here. He said yes, I know, come on." - FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL BEEHLER

He was talking about the 2nd plane impact, not explosives!

Ergo has a huge problem, he reads what he wants to read & shortens or takes out certain sentences to make his theory work. Ain't gonna work here!

 

[grandmastershek]

The fact that people described the collapse of the WTC as looking like a CD shows the average person is not an expert in CD's. The only form of CD that looks anything close to the WTC requires no explosives.

 

[DGM]

You mean the steel beams? Or should I get a microscope to examine your photo?
.

Ergo using his brain.........If you're looking for something bigger than dust (and don't want to find it), use a microscope.

 

[NoahFence]

Ah, Noah speaks for "the masses". Where have we heard this before?



There's nothing to get. Your argument can as easily be used to discount the against position. It's a stupid argument. Get it?

And I have yet to see any bedunker actually source and refute a so-called "lie" by the truth movement, so that's just your ass talking.

The numbers speak for themselves re: "the masses".

That you can't understand simple logic is horrifying. Eyewitness testimony is the ONLY piece of evidence that can be used to support the theory bombs were involved.

Physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and good old common sense prove otherwise.

As for sourcing and refuting a "truther lie" - seriously?

How's about this :
ae911truth.org - regarding only building 7

Rapid onset of collapse - lie.
Imploded, collapsing completely and into its own footprint - lie.
Sounds of explosions - lie.
Massive volume of pyroclastic dust clouds - lie.
Foreknowledge - not a lie, but used as one.

These could be mistakes, but the organization has had enough time to correct them that I can only conclude they're lying on purpose to give the more gullible amongst us something to cling to.

As for sourcing and refuting - well. I use my eyeballs.

It wasn't a rapid onset of collapse. If you go to their website you'll only find the global collapse. If you actually watch the entire collapse, you'll see something totally different.

Into it's own footprint - uh, no. Unless you call a building across the street part of WTC 7's footprint.

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipe...amage2.jpg/120px-Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

Sounds of explosions - I'm not going to beat this dead horse.

Massive Volume of Pyroclastic Dust Clouds - my personal favorite truther lie. Proof?
http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/911-woman-low.jpg

About 10-15 people in that photo, alive and walking, along with a whole bunch of paper not burned.

Anything else I can help you with?

 

[tfk]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for Rule 0.

I don't care what you've watched. If you can't formulate a coherent argument that uses factual, sourced information, then your pontifications are little more than stale air.

From the person who sources nothing.
The irony meter just exploded.

I gave you an explicit argument;

1. In the case that FFs think that there are bombs around, they are trained to move people back, pull themselves back, identify the area as a bomb threat and call for the bomb squad.

2. Many FFs reported hearing explosions. (MacQueen cites around 115, IIRC.) If those FFs thought that the explosions were really the result of explosives, then, following their training, they WOULD HAVE moved people (including FFs) back, identified the area as a bomb threat & called the bomb squad.

3. They didn't clear people out, identify the area as a bomb threat, & call for the bomb squad.

Conclusion: those FFs, by their actions, demonstrate that they did NOT think that the explosions that they reported were the results of bombs or explosives.

Your inability to follow the argument is your problem, not mine.

BTW, adding to the "brain-dead" part:

Citing the source for "something that WAS said" is easy.
That'd be YOUR job. I told you exactly where to look: the FFs' oral history files.

Citing a source for "something that is NOT said" is a touch more problematic.
The source is the entire audio & video record of FFs communications on that day and the oral histories later, with few (if any) calls for the bomb squad.

Feel free to cite quotations from FFs who noted explosions AND then called for the bomb squad.

"Hello, Bomb Squad? Where are you?........We're down at the World Trade Center... What's that?... World Trade Center.... No, not a fire, a terrorist attack!....Turn on your TV .... Yes.... Yes. We think there may be bombs and were wondering if you could come down!....Um, well, as soon as you can? If you're not too busy...."

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't be able to cite any sources.

So, in twue Twoofer fashion, making crap up is the best that you can do.

Typical.

I told you last time that I know that there are NEWS REPORTS of calls (as distinguished from actual calls) for the bomb squad. It'll be very interesting to see if any of those calls were from the same guys that were cited by MacQueen.

This source has the text of 3 (of 4) "dispatch transmissions", covering NYC's Manhattan dispatch from 8:46 thru 11:10 am on 9/11.

I searched all 3 for "bomb", "bomb squad"

I found 1 occurrence of "bomb"

pg. 10
"F. Marine 6, that plane was a large bomber -style green aircraft into the second tower, be advised."

Wow, one occurrence. And the info is wrong.

Zero occurrences of "bomb squad".

Looking for "explosion", I found 2 examples. (shown, with the dialog that followed)

D = "Dispatch"
F = "Firefighter" (or, in one case, a civilian)

pg 1 (part 1)
F. The World Trade Center tower No. 1 is on fire, the whole outside of the building. There was just a huge explosion.
D. Ten-four. All companies standby at this time. F. [inaudible] D. Ten-four.
F. Engine 1-0 to Manhattan. D. Engine 1-0. F. Engine 1-0, World Trade Center 10-60. Send every available ambulance, everything you've got, to the
World Trade Center now. D. Ten-four, 10-60 has been transmitted for the World Trade Center, 10-60 for the World Trade Center.
F. Three Truck to Manhattan. D. Three Truck. F. Civilian reports from up here a plane just crashed into the World Trade Center for your information. D. Ten-four, K. F. ... available.
F. Battalion 1 to Manhattan. D. Battalion 1, K. F. We have a number of floors on fire. It looked like the plane was aiming towards the building. Transmit
a third alarm throughout the staging area at Vescey and West Street. As the third alarm assignment goes into that area, the second alarm assignment report to the building, K.
D. Ten-four. Second alarm assignment report to the World Trade Center, second alarm assignment report to 1 World Trade Center.
F. Engine 1-0 to Manhattan. D. Engine 1-0, K. F. It appears an airplane crashed into the World Trade Center. D. Ten-four. Third alarm's been transmitted box 8087, third alarm transmitted box 8087 for 1 World
Trade Center.
___

pg 12 (part 2)
F. Tower 2 has had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding the entire area.
D. Marine 6, 10-4. We were notified, K.
D. Manhattan to Field Comm., K. Manhattan to Field Comm. F. ... D. Attention 68 Engine, 35 Engine, 50 Engine, 64 Engine, 94 Engine, 83 Engine. Those units going to the
fifth alarm box 2-0-3-3, we've been advised the West Side Highway has been opened to emergency traffic. The West Side Highway is open to emergency traffic. Take that route going to West and Vescey. Acknowledge 68.
F. Ten-four. D. Thirty-five. Thirty-five engine. F. Ten-four, 35. D. Fifty. F. Five-zero, 10-4. D. Sixty-four. F. Six-four, 10-4. D. Ninety-four. F. Nine-four, 10-4. D. Eighty-three. F. Eight-three, 10-4.
D. Manhattan calling Field Comm., K. F. Engine 240 to Manhattan. D. Go ahead 240. F. There's been a major collapse to the tower. The command center ... everybody ... There was a major
collapse. I'm in my ... right now. D. Ten-four. We've notified them that there is a major collapse in the area, K. F. Everybody in the area had to run. I don't know if Field Comm. is available. F. Can anybody hear me? D. Go ahead. F. I'm a civilian. I'm trapped inside one of your fire trucks underneath ... D. Standby, there's ... close to you. F. I can't breathe much longer. Save me! I'm in the cab ... D. Transmitting a mayday. Where are you, K.
F. I just told you. It's north of the World Trade Center, there's the north ... bridge. I think it collapsed when the partial building just collapsed. I was on the street ... Please, help me!
F. ... I copy that. I'm going to go look for her. D. Ten-four.
D. Manhattan to Field Comm., urgent, K. F. I can barely breath. Please, send somebody. D. O.K., the person calling for help, listen to me, you need to calm down and relax. Standby, we do have
somebody on the way. You're to maintain air - get off the air. We do have somebody on the way over to you. You're to remain calm, 10-4?
F. It's falling on top of the truck. D. Ten-four. We do have people on the way over there.

___

No indication that Manhattan dispatch was sending in the bomb squad.
No indication from the Firefighters that they were requesting the bomb squad.
___


This site has 503 pdfs. Go to town. Download them & count the number of dispatches of the bomb squad.

I randomly sampled 10 for the existence of the word "bomb".

9 out of 10 had zero mention of "bomb" or "bomb squad".
LIEUTENANT JOHN MENDEZ
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD MASSA
FIREFIGHTER TYRONE JOHNSON
LIEUTENANT HOWARD HAHN
Captain David Fenton
CHIEF FRANK CRUTHERS
FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA
EMT GREGG BRADY
FIREFIGHTER ALBERT BARRY


1 out of 10 had one mention of "bomb", referring to bodies hitting the ground.

LIEUTENANT JOSEPH CHIAFARI
Visibly from where we were standing, I estimate that I probably saw about a hundred people jumping to their death. Some looked like they were in pairs, but most of them were singly, free falling, to such a degree that they were doing tumblesalts in the air and forcibly landing to the ground, or very impactly landing on top of that glass canopy, which seemed to be like almost like individual skylights that were -- they were breaking through. Very noticeably you could hear them like pounding, almost like a bomb going off, a small bomb, like paum, paum. And so there was a lot of glass breaking and a lot of hearts being shattered by watching that thing.

___

No indication of "bomb squad" from any of them.

493 more opportunities for you to find "bomb squad".

Get to it...

 

[ergo]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

Rapid onset of collapse - lie.
Imploded, collapsing completely and into its own footprint - lie.
Sounds of explosions - lie.
Massive volume of pyroclastic dust clouds - lie.
Foreknowledge - not a lie, but used as one.

Typing "lie" after a statement doesn't make it so. You have to be able to refute it. You haven't done so. Nor has anyone else here. Perhaps you don't understand what they are saying here?

As for sourcing and refuting - well. I use my eyeballs.

Yes, I figured that.

Into it's own footprint - uh, no. Unless you call a building across the street part of WTC 7's footprint.

Already debunked.

Anything else I can help you with?

Seeing as how you're unable to provide any new insights, no, thanks. We've heard all the bedunkery on this before. It's been debunked.

 

[ergo]

Tfk, do you think the bomb squad wouldn't already be there, intimately involved in the situation? Or were they hanging out at a Starbucks in New Jersey?

 

[tfk]

Please show me where I have stated that witness testimonies of explosions means that there were bombs.

How about here, for one...

Evidence of explosives is also in the description provided by witnesses, in the manner in which the floors blew out, according to them, in the pressure waves described, in the expulsion of tiny bone fragments laterally onto neighbouring buildings, and in the noise they created.

Gee, 30 minutes later, and you've already forgot the "I don't claim nothin'" playbook…


By the way ...

Evidence of explosives is also in the description provided by witnesses...

Wrong.

Evidence of explosives is also … in the manner in which the floors blew out, according to them …

Wrong.

Evidence of explosives is also … in the pressure waves described…

Wrong.

Evidence of explosives is also … in the expulsion of tiny bone fragments laterally onto neighbouring buildings ...

Wrong.

Evidence of explosives is also … in the noise they created.

Laughably wrong.

To be precise, evidence of the LACK of explosives is provided in the LACK of noise they created.

Amusing claim, tho.

 

[NoahFence]

Well that'll just about do it....

 

[NoahFence]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

Typing "lie" after a statement doesn't make it so. You have to be able to refute it. You haven't done so. Nor has anyone else here. Perhaps you don't understand what they are saying here?



Yes, I figured that.



Already debunked.



Seeing as how you're unable to provide any new insights, no, thanks. We've heard all the bedunkery on this before. It's been debunked.

I did refute it. Since you're so pig-headed that you can't fathom being wrong, lets just use one that you conveniently ignored because it proved without a shadow of a doubt that I refuted then sourced.

The Pyroclastic Dust Cloud.
Did I or did I not prove that it wasn't pyroclastic?

So I took your little challenge of finding one truther "lie" and did it. I'm sorry you chose to ignore that. That's on you, not me.

 

[ergo]

I randomly sampled 10 for the existence of the word "bomb".

9 out of 10 had zero mention of "bomb" or "bomb squad".
LIEUTENANT JOHN MENDEZ
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD MASSA
FIREFIGHTER TYRONE JOHNSON
LIEUTENANT HOWARD HAHN
Captain David Fenton
CHIEF FRANK CRUTHERS
FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA
EMT GREGG BRADY
FIREFIGHTER ALBERT BARRY


1 out of 10 had one mention of "bomb", referring to bodies hitting the ground.

Oooo, powerful bedunkering, there, tfk.

For example, Cachia only had this to say:

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down. Then everybody started to turn towards the garage. That was it. We were just kind of blown into the garage with all the dust and the debris and material from the building. It came up rapidly right up the street. As I remember turning, if you were out in the street somewhat, a good amount out in the street, you were kind of blown down the street, where we were kind of forced into the garage. We were very fortunate. There were several companies.

Seriously, you guys need to get real or give it a rest. Your points are stupid. You have no evidence. Your argument is weak. Give it up.

 

[tfk]

Tfk, do you think the bomb squad wouldn't already be there, intimately involved in the situation? Or were they hanging out at a Starbucks in New Jersey?

Do you think that the bomb squad (or ANY other asset) is dispatched thru The Psychic Hotline?

You're falling on your face.

Thus far, you've provided not one single incident of a FF who claims that they heard an explosion, and then indicated that he really thought it was a bomb by following his training by notifying others of the situation, getting people out of the area & calling the bomb squad.

Giant fail.

 

[NoahFence]

Typing "lie" after a statement doesn't make it so. You have to be able to refute it. You haven't done so. Nor has anyone else here. Perhaps you don't understand what they are saying here?

Seeing as how you're unable to provide any new insights, no, thanks. We've heard all the bedunkery on this before. It's been debunked.

I didn't just type "lie" after a statement. Read on and you'll clearly see these lies proven as such, with your requisite sourcing.

 

[NoahFence]

because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

I could easily read that and draw the conclusion that he now thinks different. "Originally thought"