Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[ergo]

The Pentagon is a five story building built on former swamp land with a foundation of a series of concrete piles.

The WTC towers were 110 stories and the foundations were connected to the bedrock 70 ft down.

And yes, Animal, out of fairness, I will say this sounds like a reasonable, if weak, point.

 

[ergo]

Now, shall I assume no one has found any testimony that puts the explosions the firefighters heard into a recognizable context? Did any one of them say that the explosions they heard were typical of those they encounter in other building fires?

This is a Very Big Point with bedunkers, since they are always anxious to handwave away all testimony--by people who were actually there--of explosions seen and heard, as "standard" in "all" building fires. Where is this idea supported by the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Evidence, please.

 

[beachnut]

Now, shall I assume no one has found any testimony that puts the explosions the firefighters heard into a recognizable context? Did any one of them say that the explosions they heard were typical of those they encounter in other building fires?

This is a Very Big Point with bedunkers, since they are always anxious to handwave away all testimony--by people who were actually there--of explosions seen and heard, as "standard" in "all" building fires. Where is this idea supported by the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Evidence, please.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

Debunked years ago. It takes less than 2 years to expose conspiracies less complex than the fuzzy fantasy delusions 911 truth has made up out of nonsensical ideas and silly claims.

Number who said, as of the interview date, that they thought they'd actually seen or heard explosives – 0

Number who have claimed since 2001 that they believe there were explosives in the buildings – 0

 

[ergo]

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

No, he hasn't debunked anything there. The ff's who describe the sounds of bodies falling are not the same as the ones I've listed. Or if one or two are, they are talking about a different instance.

I also looked over that list a while ago and could not find sources in the Oral Histories for many of them. I think he made some up. If he didn't, he hasn't sourced them. He also has liberally interpreted in some of these cases, where the ff's have re-interpreted what they heard after they were told what it might have been.

So, no. Not debunked at all. Like the rest of his site, it's typical bedunker smoke and mirrors. I'm not sure if there's even a single fact on that site that he hasn't mangled or contorted in some way.

 

[TruthersLie]

That is standard English for describing what something sounds like. The sentence "We heard explosions" is also standard English and doesn't try to describe what was heard in terms of something else.

How many firefighters in those accounts mention something along the lines of "the explosions we heard were typical of those we encounter in other building fires." Is it mentioned even once? Take a look and get back to us. Thanks.

that huge pile o fail you stepped into (notice the difference) about a month agao... the Caracas tower fire... there were "explosions" reported.

Why would there be explosions? Were there "explosives" there?

you really stepped ONTO your dick there...

and this is the video... notice all the people talking about "explosions." Are they talking about "explosives?"

 

[adkinsjr]

notice all the people talking about "explosions." Are they talking about "explosives?"

Well did any of the witnesses say "the explosions we heard were typical of those we encounter in other building fires."???

If not, then there must have been explosives. bahahaha

 

[TruthersLie]

And yes, Animal, out of fairness, I will say this sounds like a reasonable, if weak, point.

I love it when ergo steps onto his dick as often as he does.

concrete pads sitting ON TOP of a marsh vs steel beams/columns drilled into bedrock...

that is a "weak point." No it completely destroys your bs claim.

now we can move onto similes....
or are yous till working on prepositions?

 

[beachnut]

No, he hasn't debunked anything there. The ff's who describe the sounds of bodies falling are not the same as the ones I've listed. Or if one or two are, they are talking about a different instance.

... .

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard It debunks your claims. You did not investigate why it debunks your claims. You focused on what had to acknowledge before, when you were debunked the first time you fell for similes being used to manufacture the fantasy of explosives.

Try to dig deeper, if you fail, someone can explain it. Don't fail to dig deep enough to figure this out.

You are fixating on your previous failure to understand people hitting the ground sounded like explosions, instead of seeing all the statements are about sounds, not explosives. Take the time to read all the information related to your outrageously silly claims. Try to forget you fell for bodies hitting the ground as support for your explosives claims, and check out the rest of the information.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1

[QUOTE]# Who said they thought, as of the interview date, that they had actually seen or heard explosives.....0

# Who have claimed in the past 5 years that they believe there were explosive devices in the buildings.....0
[/quote]
Read as much as you can on this subject, you will have the knowledge to fend off the beetle-headed delusions spread by 911 truth.

I hate to see the anti-intellectual movement of 911 truth fool people; ..., you are free to believe the lies from 911 truth and spread them. It is self-critiquing. The way 911 truth operates is the opposite of JREF. 911 truth operates one-way with blind skepticism against reality, JREF operates with the "show me", the skepticism of all claims, based on knowledge, reality, evidence, using critical thinking.

simile - a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as

good luck - OP debunked on 911 - and explained many times - sources offered almost 4 years old or more, and easy to find. You are JREF now, you signed up to be a skeptic; why are you fooled by 911 truth?

 

[mike3]

Now, shall I assume no one has found any testimony that puts the explosions the firefighters heard into a recognizable context? Did any one of them say that the explosions they heard were typical of those they encounter in other building fires?

Why would they? Unless they were being specifically queried on that, I don't see why they would. They were just coming up with descriptions of various phenomena they saw and heard.

This is a Very Big Point with bedunkers, since they are always anxious to handwave away all testimony--by people who were actually there--of explosions seen and heard, as "standard" in "all" building fires. Where is this idea supported by the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Evidence, please.

Could you tell me what EXACTLY is wrong with the idea that a report of an "explosion" does not automatically mean that there was an actual explosion, or an explosion caused by a bomb? A video was linked to, showing how exactly this kind of wording can appear in witness reports of things that were not bombs at all. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizurbqG50U

"...it sounded like TWO BOMBS going off..." (and it was actually a CRANE snapping, falling, and crashing)

"...muffled EXPLOSIONS could be heard in the building..." (and this was just an accidental fire, it was not a terror attack or anything like it)

By your own logic, this would constitute evidence of bombs in these incidents. Is that what you believe?

 

[TruthersLie]

No, he hasn't debunked anything there. The ff's who describe the sounds of bodies falling are not the same as the ones I've listed. Or if one or two are, they are talking about a different instance.

I also looked over that list a while ago and could not find sources in the Oral Histories for many of them. I think he made some up. If he didn't, he hasn't sourced them. He also has liberally interpreted in some of these cases, where the ff's have re-interpreted what they heard after they were told what it might have been.

So, no. Not debunked at all. Like the rest of his site, it's typical bedunker smoke and mirrors. I'm not sure if there's even a single fact on that site that he hasn't mangled or contorted in some way.

Personally, I'd wager you managed to READ that list the same way you managed to READ Scott S's paper on truthers.

But what else can we expect from someone who has difficulties with articles, can't figure out the difference between essentially and actually and has a whole host of other learning issues.

P.s. have you figured out why the caracas tower remained standing yet?

 

[Animal]

And yes, Animal, out of fairness, I will say this sounds like a reasonable, if weak, point.

The only think weak is your original conjecture that something was amiss regarding the lack of a seismic signature at the Pentagon

 

[ergo]

Why would they? Unless they were being specifically queried on that, I don't see why they would. They were just coming up with descriptions of various phenomena they saw and heard.

Because they're firefighters.

Because what they were describing was clearly unusual to them. They don't need to wait to be asked "Well, were these unusual sounds?" If they were not unusual, then they would have said it. "Yes, we heard explosions, but they were nothing out of the ordinary for building fires." Nobody said this. A few had already interpreted their impressions after hearing about what it might have been (eg; the start of collapse), but many didn't. They just reported what they heard. We also have news footage of many of them saying the same things. Why do you guys have such problems with this?

Bedunkers say this all the time, that the explosions were typical of building fires. Since probably 98% of bedunkers are not firefighters, why are you making these claims and pretending to speak for people who are?

And of course, now your tack is to overstate the argument: that, therefore, this automatically points to CD. I'm not saying this either, although I obviously have a bias. I am merely pointing out what is in the record. Why do you have such difficulty accepting what is in the record? You end up just looking like idiots or liars.

 

[funk de fino]

Now, shall I assume no one has found any testimony that puts the explosions the firefighters heard into a recognizable context? Did any one of them say that the explosions they heard were typical of those they encounter in other building fires?

This is a Very Big Point with bedunkers, since they are always anxious to handwave away all testimony--by people who were actually there--of explosions seen and heard, as "standard" in "all" building fires. Where is this idea supported by the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Evidence, please.

You do know NIST interviewed many of these witness again dont you?

None of them claimed bombs or explosives. So, NIST did not handwave it and did considerably more than you have to clarify the testimonies.

 

[ergo]

Yeah? Five years later? Five years later of steady media propaganda about "What Did and Did Not Happen" on 9/11? Good work, NIST!

 

[NoahFence]

Now, shall I assume no one has found any testimony that puts the explosions the firefighters heard into a recognizable context? Did any one of them say that the explosions they heard were typical of those they encounter in other building fires?

This is a Very Big Point with bedunkers, since they are always anxious to handwave away all testimony--by people who were actually there--of explosions seen and heard, as "standard" in "all" building fires. Where is this idea supported by the testimony of the firefighters who were there? Evidence, please.

I worry 'bout you.

I guess we have to do this slowly:

Firefighters heard explosions.
At the site of the worst terrorist attack known to man, this is likely.
Firefighters and cleanup crews found no evidence of exploSIVES.

ergo....
Explosions do not equal explosives.

There are only two scenario's that I can come up with.

Either
A) Terrorists flew aircraft into the buildings causing damage and fires on a scale that doomed the buildings.

or

B) Massive amounts of explosives were brought into the buildings, detcord, primer, etc... unseen, and planted in such a way that they would survive the impact and resulting explosion and fire of a 767 going 500+ mph.

Which one is it?

 

[TruthersLie]

Because they're firefighters.

Because what they were describing was clearly unusual to them. They don't need to wait to be asked "Well, were these unusual sounds?" If they were not unusual, then they would have said it. "Yes, we heard explosions, but they were nothing out of the ordinary for building fires." Nobody said this. A few had already interpreted their impressions after hearing about what it might have been (eg; the start of collapse), but many didn't. They just reported what they heard. We also have news footage of many of them saying the same things. Why do you guys have such problems with this?

Bedunkers say this all the time, that the explosions were typical of building fires. Since probably 98% of bedunkers are not firefighters, why are you making these claims and pretending to speak for people who are?

And of course, now your tack is to overstate the argument: that, therefore, this automatically points to CD. I'm not saying this either, although I obviously have a bias. I am merely pointing out what is in the record. Why do you have such difficulty accepting what is in the record? You end up just looking like idiots or liars.

What is in the record are things which are called similes. I know in your english grammar class you haven't gotten to them yet. You are still working on prepositions (into vs onto) and qualifiers (about). Once you get those down, you can ask one of those angry ESL teachers who you pretend to read their research papers... maybe they can explain what a simile is.

But then again, there are people saying it felt like there were trains in the towers... was it a super duper train DEW weapon from orbit? Were there really runaway trains in the towers?

In office fires there are EXPLOSIONS. It has been stated to you repeatedly. You keep on ignoring it.

Unless you can eliminate any possible cause of an EXPLOSION in the WTC fires (there are ABOUT 20 different items found in an office which would explode when on fire) then you cannot claim there is anything curious/suspicious/wrong about what people may have heard.

Now S... I mean Ergo, we've had this discussion in many different places, in other forums and you keep getting your ass handed to you about things like SCIENCE.

p.s. have you figured out why the caracas towers may have remained standing yet?
p.p.s. in the caracas towers there were reported explosions... was that NWO magic nanothermite? Or was it just stuff that happens to be in a normal office fire?

 

[TruthersLie]

I worry 'bout you.

I guess we have to do this slowly:

Firefighters heard explosions.
At the site of the worst terrorist attack known to man, this is likely.
Firefighters and cleanup crews found no evidence of exploSIVES.

ergo....
Explosions do not equal explosives.

There are only two scenario's that I can come up with.

Either
A) Terrorists flew aircraft into the buildings causing damage and fires on a scale that doomed the buildings.

or

B) Massive amounts of explosives were brought into the buildings, detcord, primer, etc... unseen, and planted in such a way that they would survive the impact and resulting explosion and fire of a 767 going 500+ mph.

Which one is it?

Hey now... it was invisihushananothermite... and it was planted by ninjaneers... 20000 of them.

duh.

Oh wait... sorry.. Mothra dun it.

 

[TruthersLie]

Yeah? Five years later? Five years later of steady media propaganda about "What Did and Did Not Happen" on 9/11? Good work, NIST!

Argument from incredulity barely held in check. Wahhhhh wahhhhh.

I bet NIST is soooooo sorry they took sooooooo long. I"m sure it really inconvienced you. Not being able to have some gubmint paper wich id full of da lies.

Really.
Honestly.

And even after those 5 years to fully document wtc7, and now that twoofs have had 2 years for rebuttals... where is a single one in any peer reviewed engineering journal on the face of the planet?

The funniest thing about stun... ERgo is his incredulity. It is almost matched by his ignorance.

I'm going to let you in on a small secret from academia. Do you know the EASIEST way to get a Phd in (almost) any field?

Find another Phd (a respected one is best) and then publish a paper which shows that the other guy is wrong. EASIEST PhD EVER!

Now if you can do that with governmental agencies (like NIST), you would be hired by any one of the top ten engineering firms in the world. You would be offered tenure at some of the best engineering schools in the world.

Yet after 2 years, there are NO peer reviewed refutations of NIST. Not even of PARTS of the NIST report.

Why is that?

Don'tcha guys have something like 1400 "experts?" And yet, none of them can get past peer review in any peer reviewed journal, in any language, in any part of the world. Really? Amazing.

 

[Animal]

I worry 'bout you.

I guess we have to do this slowly:

Firefighters heard explosions.
At the site of the worst terrorist attack known to man, this is likely.
Firefighters and cleanup crews found no evidence of exploSIVES.

ergo....
Explosions do not equal explosives.

There are only two scenario's that I can come up with.

Either
A) Terrorists flew aircraft into the buildings causing damage and fires on a scale that doomed the buildings.

or

B) Massive amounts of explosives were brought into the buildings, detcord, primer, etc... unseen, and planted in such a way that they would survive the impact and resulting explosion and fire of a 767 going 500+ mph.

Which one is it?

Add to 'B' - In a city that nothing moves without several unions involvement, in buildings that were occupied 24/7, and the the surviving devices would have had to produce the same events as seen on 911 - sagging floors, bowing columns, no seismic signature, etc., etc. all done by a government that could not keep a blue stained dress secret that only three people knew about.

 

[femr2]

There are only two scenario's that I can come up with.

As I am sure you can see by the very subtle hints TruthersLie and Animal are providing you, that's an oft made, but pretty silly thing to say. If you're going to get your, what, *debunker* wings, you're going to have to stop walking into walls

I am sure you could come up with an almost infinite number of scenarios, if you engaged your brain.

Your statement is as stupid as saying *You're with us, or you're with the terrorists*.

Have fun.