Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[ergo]

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…

Saying that evidence exists is not saying that it is proof. It is saying that evidence exists. I wonder when that's going to sink in for you guys. I'm not going to wait.

 

[NoahFence]

Saying that evidence exists is not saying that it is proof. It is saying that evidence exists. I wonder when that's going to sink in for you guys. I'm not going to wait.

So what happens in my case when I say the evidence exists to disprove a truther lie, then I present it?


You ignore it.

Truther 101.

 

[DGM]

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.

To be fair, they could just be stupid and not know these are lies. You would have to show they knew better.

A perfect example of a "truther" lie is in the video "9/11 Mysteries". The creator (Sophia (?)) admitted she put the explosive sounds in to "make her point". Now her claim in the video was that bombs were heard so, there's no denying this was a lie.

 

[NoahFence]

To be fair, they could just be stupid and not know these are lies. You would have to show they knew better.

After this amount of time, no. Clearly, in the case of the video on their homepage of the wtc 7 collapse, it's a lie and they know it. They've been called out on it ad nauseum, and they won't budge.

 

[DGM]

After this amount of time, no. Clearly, in the case of the video on their homepage of the wtc 7 collapse, it's a lie and they know it. They've been called out on it ad nauseum, and they won't budge.

Don't get me wrong, I agree. But, when you deal with a group that twists and distorts every possible thing to shoehorn it into a fantasy it helps to be "iron clad".

You have to cement the damn "goal posts" with these people.

 

[ergo]

A perfect example of a "truther" lie is in the video "9/11 Mysteries". The creator (Sophia (?)) admitted she put the explosive sounds in to "make her point". Now her claim in the video was that bombs were heard so, there's no denying this was a lie.

That would be the first one I've ever heard of, in terms of actually catching a lie or refuting a truth claim. Not bedunking; refuting. That means to prove a claim false. It doesn't mean to cast doubt on it, or to bury or confuse the point. It doesn't mean to discredit the claimant. Refuting a claim means to prove it false.

 

[NoahFence]

That would be the first one I've ever heard of, in terms of actually catching a lie or refuting a truth claim. Not bedunking; refuting. That means to prove a claim false. It doesn't mean to cast doubt on it, or to bury or confuse the point. It doesn't mean to discredit the claimant. Refuting a claim means to prove it false.

Which I did, and you ignore, still.

 

[DGM]

That would be the first one I've ever heard of, in terms of actually catching a lie or refuting a truth claim.

Jason Burmas and Dylan Avery admitted "untruths" in the first couple "loose change" videos. No retractions were ever made. They claimed they would "fix them" in later versions.

Not bedunking; refuting. That means to prove a claim false. It doesn't mean to cast doubt on it, or to bury or confuse the point. It doesn't mean to discredit the claimant. Refuting a claim means to prove it false.

How exactly has anything you have presented not fallen under the same? Have you not "cast doubt" or tried to "bury or confuse a point" by presenting testimony that could be taken any number of ways?

The quality of the "be-dunking" is directly proportional to the quality of the "dunk". In other words "you get what you pay for".*


* is that enough metaphors

 

[tfk]

Oooo, powerful bedunkering, there, tfk.

Not powerful. Adequate.

And zero response from you in addressing any of the points I've made.

BTW, why don't you stop lying.

You say that you are not claiming that the FFs interpretation of explosions is evidence for explosives…

… and then you post EXACTLY that assertion.

Like here.

Why don't you simply admit what is clear to everyone: That you use the witness testimony to assert that there were explosives used.

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.

A great quote to examine in a little detail.

Let's see:

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 ...

This statement is factually incorrect.

With zero question, the tower buckled at the floors hit by the plane.

Was Mr. Cachia lying about this?
Absolutely not. He relayed the situation exactly as he remembered it.

It happens that people's (even honest people's) observations and memories are fallible.

… because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives ...

Ahhh, something of relevance.

While standing on the street …

[Mr Cachia identifying his location]

"We walked towards a command post which was set up by an underground garage across from tower two… On the northern side of the garage were the engine companies. We were waiting there for our assignments … We moved to the top of the hill.")

… looking up from below, he thought that there were explosives detonating inside the building 1000' above him.

Anyone's (even an explosive expert's) ability to distinguish an explosion from the buckling of the building while standing on the street, 1000' below, is highly questionable. Especially someone who has zero experience with making that distinction.

Fortunately, we do have the professional opinions of several explosive experts AFTER carefully examining the evidence: no explosives.
____

And he thought this because …

... because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Interpreting the "... and THEN ..." as an indication of time sequence, we know, with absolute certainty, that this statement is factually incorrect too.

Because we have audio recording taken from every side of the building at that moment.

There were no "boom, boom, booms" just before the towers began to collapse.

There were lots of "boom, boom, booms" AFTER the towers began to collapse.

Is Mr. Cachia lying here?
Of course not.
Same as above. His honest, but incorrect, impression and/or memory.

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.

Just as Mr. Cachia's impressions of his situation were fallible, I believe that your impression of your victory in this debate are, as gently as I can phrase it, "less than objective, reliable or accurate".

JMO, of course.

 

[NoahFence]

I think ergo's out looking for evidence that paper and humans can survive a pyroclastic cloud....

 

[twinstead]

Is the idea that a few rogue eye-witness accounts that may be contrary to the preponderance of evidence can trump physical evidence and the majority of eye-witness accounts some kind truther phenomenon? This is a recurrent theme, for both the WTC buildings and the Pentagon.

No real investigator would do that.

 

[tfk]

Saying that evidence exists is not saying that it is proof. It is saying that evidence exists. I wonder when that's going to sink in for you guys. I'm not going to wait.

Wrong.

Legal hairsplit that falls on its face.

Testimony exists that is non-deterministic for A. explosive-based explosions OR B. non-explosive based explosions.

Since the testimony is NOT definitive for either case, then it does NOT constitute evidence for either one.

The total lack of any evidence for explosives weakens the claim to near-insignificance.

Independent, hard proof that there were no explosives (the absence of seismic events that would be inevitable in the presence of explosives, the lack of sounds with operating video cameras, etc.) renders the testimony's stance as "evidence for explosives" completely null.

This is what you are not getting.

Waste of time here...

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, Trifor, we know that the firefighters were providing their testimonies after the event. After the official story was soundly in place, and their impressions were reinterpreted for them.

Those quotes were merely to prove the bedunkers wrong about firefighters' impressions. Again.

Nice handwave. Do you need someone to eplain it to you? Yes or no?

Do you understand a comparison?

When are you going to provide a quote from any firefighter calling the bomb squad?

Today? Tomorrow? Ever?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't think I've ever seen a reason provided from the conspiracy camp explaining why reports of explosions are in of themselves anomalous during a large building fire, or for that matter why firefighter would realistically not expect there to be any, particularly when the cause of the fire was dangled in front of millions of on-lookers

 

[triforcharity]

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?

And yet, nobody told the NYPD to go to __________ and investigate a bomb. Imagine that.

 

[George 152]

I think ergo's out looking for evidence that paper and humans can survive a pyroclastic cloud....

Now you're claiming that it was a volcano ?
You -do- know what a pyroclastic cloud is and how it is created ?

 

[DGM]

And yet, nobody told the NYPD to go to __________ and investigate a bomb. Imagine that.

<nit pick>

Wasn't the bomb squad sent to three places? The "infamous" van, one of the tunnels and a school (nothing to do with the WTC site).Does show they were working that day.

</nit pick>

 

[George 152]

I think ergo's out looking for evidence that paper and humans can survive a pyroclastic cloud....

Now you're claiming that it was a volcano ?
You -do- know what a pyroclastic cloud is and how it is created ?
Don't give the kooks amunition

 

[NoahFence]

Now you're claiming that it was a volcano ?
You -do- know what a pyroclastic cloud is and how it is created ?

You need to press the rewind button.

ergo claimed that nobody could PROVE any truther claim is a lie.

I used the pyroclastic cloud example to prove him wrong.

Truthers claim that the dust cloud was "pyroclastic" so I gave ergo a photo (which he has ignored) of people and paper covered in dust, yet otherwise A-OK.

I know very well what a pyroclastic cloud is, and that's why i'm using that as my example of being able to refute "one" truther lie. I actually refuted a bit more than that, but it's the most glaring and obvious lie they tell.

thanks for reading the whole thread!

The post in question is at 1:25. Same page!

 

[WildCat]

Hey Wildcat, have you finished counting to zero?

Do it one hundred more times.

Zero, that's the number of firefighters on the scene that day who think there were bombs, yes?