Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[WildCat]

It only takes an ******** ***** to mess up what the firefighters said.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Not all truthers are ******** ******. Some are mentally ill, and some are just pricks trolling internet forums to fill a void in their lives because mommy didn't love them or something.

But I'm glad we agree somewhat on this point.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Charlie Sheen is not irreplaceable

I've done a count.
The number is ZERO.
Not a single firefighter on scene that day thinks there were bombs.
None, nada, zilch.
Where does this leave your theory?

I guess this is why I have you on Ignore.

Magnificent

I collapsed with core-led, explosive laughter.

It only takes an ******** ***** to mess up what the firefighters said.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

This subforum needs a larger version of the laughing dog.

 

[Sunstealer]

BTW. Figure 4 in that Pentagon paper you cite shows no big spikes before the south tower collapsed. You probably should read your links.

Truthers are too stupid to realise that people actually read links posted. They ofcourse very rarely bother to either read articles they link to or those debunkers link to. I particularly enjoy it when their own links debunk their arguments. We don't have a big enough irony meter smilie.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I collapsed with core-led, explosive laughter.


This subforum needs a larger version of the laughing dog.

I think ergo is what's driving this need.

Happy to Help!
=>

Considering ergo's prolific output, we'll need this too:
=>

Cheers, Dave

 

[ergo]

Wildcat says: "counting to zero is easy!"

I guess that's how you guys come up with your numbers!

 

[NoahFence]

It only takes an ******** ***** to mess up what the firefighters said.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Yikes.

 

[ergo]

Truthers are too stupid to realise that people actually read links posted. They of course very rarely bother to either read articles they link to or those debunkers link to. I particularly enjoy it when their own links debunk their arguments. We don't have a big enough irony meter smilie.

Heh. If you yourself read links--or, indeed, read any factual information at all, you would know that slojoe merely moved his goalposts here. What a bedunker surprise!

 

[NoahFence]

Ergo, why don't we bottom line this with a simple one word reply on your part.

Does everything that explodes, or sound like and explosion, come from an explosive?

Just a yes or no please.

 

[ergo]

Noah, you're a newbie. Just read the thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Noah, you're a newbie. Just read the thread.

Newbie on JREF, not a newbie to people such as yourself.

Just answer the question. Yes or No.

That people are under the impression that only explosives can create an explosion is simply bizarre. Especially given the circumstances that were present that day. Simply bizarre.

 

[ergo]

I told you to read the thread. I think you should follow my advice.

I also asked you previously whether any firefighters had commented on record that the explosions they reported hearing were standard to building fires. You didn't answer this.

Don't make me put you on Ignore.

 

[WildCat]

Don't make me put you on Ignore.

Don't you mean "pretend" ignore?

In other news:

A piece of World Trade Center steel is being molded into an angel in the memory of a girl who was born on Sept. 11, 2001, and died in a barrage of gunfire in the Tucson, Ariz., shooting rampage that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The 5 1/2-foot-long fragment of an I-beam was picked up from a hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Wednesday and will be trucked to Arizona in time for an April 1 dedication ceremony.

I thought all the steel was shipped to China and melted down?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Just answer the question. Yes or No.

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

[Tiresome disclaimer: I do not believe there were explosives in the towers. I am not a twoofer. I just prefer arguments that have real merit, rather than cheap rhetorical games. I prefer both to outright insults, which convince nobody of anything.]

 

[NoahFence]

I told you to read the thread. I think you should follow my advice.

I also asked you previously whether any firefighters had commented on record that the explosions they reported hearing were standard to building fires. You didn't answer this.

Don't make me put you on Ignore.

I did read the thread. Your assertions are laughable. That massive explosions could be muffled by furniture and drywall. You ask open-ended questions that you know can't be answered without a full-scale recreation of the events. So...must be some new type of demo we've not seen prior to 9/11 or since. Uh...huh.

You also know that we can't find any comments from firefighters reporting if these explosions were consistent with office fires. There's no reason for them to even go there. None. I can't stress this enough - there was nothing standard about anything on 9/11. Nothing.

Aren't you forgetting thermite? It's not explosive. It's reactive.

This is the problem with you twoofers. Every time someone comes along to disprove whatever you say, you people change the story. Is it thermite? Is it RDX? Is it some super secret super silent device? What is it?

Don't make me put you on Ignore.

Oh knoesss! Not that!

 

[NoahFence]

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

No. (see ergo, not too hard)

Excellent point though. However, given the circumstances surrounding the collapses, at some point in time we've got to use common sense. Look at the big picture and come up with a valid argument. No physical evidence of explosives were ever found. Now simply using anecdotal evidence, it becomes pretty clear no explosives were used. Did massive airplanes crash into the buildings? Yes. Did fires rage unchecked for an hour +/-? Yes. Do radical islamic fundamentals hate us? Yes. Have they attacked us before? Yes. Have they attacked the WTC before? Yes.

Were there any other issues that day? Aside from NYC? Yes. Everything points toward the so-called official version being accurate. Nothing points to government involvement.


The OP was referring to weather or not the sounds of explosions from the explosive devices could be heard at ground level. I don't know. All I know is explosions consistent with controlled demolition were not heard at ground level, or in phone conversations with deceased persons inside the building, high up. Therefore we can only conclude that controlled demolition was not used. Firefighters saying whatever they will regarding 'standard office fires' is moot. Firefighters are allowed to use similes just like the rest of us. In the last (almost) 10 years, not one NYC Fireman has come forward to present a case for explosive demolition. Not one. This after more than 300 of them died that day. That is all the proof I need that no explosives were used.
(well, that and the fact that none were found)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

[Tiresome disclaimer: I do not believe there were explosives in the towers. I am not a twoofer. I just prefer arguments that have real merit, rather than cheap rhetorical games. I prefer both to outright insults, which convince nobody of anything.]

When the argument on offer is framed in the form:

P1: Explosions were heard at the Twin Towers.
P2: All explosions are caused by explosives.
C: Therefore, there were explosives in the Twin Towers.

...it is a perfectly valid refutation of this argument to point out that P2 is incorrect, because not all explosions are caused by explosives; the conclusion that explosives were present is therefore logically unsound. This response is equally valid when only P1 and C are stated explicitly, and P2 is only implied. It's also equally valid when only P1 is stated, and P2 and C are both implied.

There is a large convergence of evidence leading to the establishment beyond reasonable doubt that there were no explosives involved in the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, that's a different issue; the refutation of a counter-argument is not entirely without merit, especially when this counter-argument is so frequently, and, usually, so wilfully misleadingly, re-stated despite having been refuted many times already.

Putting it another way, the cheap rhetorical games here are not coming from NoahFence.

Dave

 

[The Platypus]

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

[Tiresome disclaimer: I do not believe there were explosives in the towers. I am not a twoofer. I just prefer arguments that have real merit, rather than cheap rhetorical games. I prefer both to outright insults, which convince nobody of anything.]

When all that is offered to support the existence of explosives is that a few people heard some noises they described as explosions.

In such a situation as 911, a great many things can sound like explosions that are not planted explosives and there is no evidence at all of any explosives. So yes, this does rule it out because such a weakly supported claim is without merit and is just a cheap rhetorical game, a game in which you should be tired of (as I know I am and many of us are).

 

[beachnut]

Would the fact that not all explosions are caused by explosives rule out explosives at the site of reported explosions?

Just answer yes or no.

[Tiresome disclaimer: I do not believe there were explosives in the towers. I am not a twoofer. I just prefer arguments that have real merit, rather than cheap rhetorical games. I prefer both to outright insults, which convince nobody of anything.]

It would be cool if 911 truth showed up with more than moronic rhetoric and plagiarized lies from a stillborn movement.

Would the fact there is no evidence of explosives being used on 911, rule out explosives? just answer yes or no (is this a polite way to be civil, "just answer yes or no" if find it rude, what say you?)

Already showed 911 truth where the energy was from that destroyed the WTC complex! E=mgh. Did you miss that? Did you research why "news" of explosives in the WTC core is failed plagiarized moronic claptrap? just answer yes or no. 911 truth is on a perfect roll of no substance, no evidence, no clue on 911. Check it out, the stupid burns.

I find it an insult to spread lies on 911. Is it civil to lie, is it polite to lie? Yes or No? I find it insulting 911 truth has no arguments past fantasy and delusions to present, yet spread the lies misleading the immature and gullible. Do you? Yes, No, maybe, kind of, sort of? just answer yes or no

Why has 911 truth failed to ask the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers if the towers collapse as they would from an impact, fire and gravity? Why do they prefer to make up insane lies of explosives? Insane because after studying thousand of pages of information on 911, there was zero evidence of explosives used on 911. Math seems to be a stumbling point of 911 truth, so zero means, no evidence.

 

[TruthersLie]

Heh. If you yourself read links--or, indeed, read any factual information at all, you would know that slojoe merely moved his goalposts here. What a bedunker surprise!

So have you actually asked your mom to take you to the local library where you can actually READ scott S's article in skeptic magazine yet, or will you just pretent to have read it some more?

On an completely different point.
Did the caracas tower fire have explosions reported? yes or no?
How about the meridian plaza fire? Yes or no?
the one new york plaza fire? yes or no?
the First interstate fire? yes or no?

Do office fires have things which explode in them? yes or no?

Are any of the FDNY part of firefighters for 9/11 twoof? Yes or no?

 

[TexasJack]

If I was asked to describe the sound in this video of a fire, I would say it sounded like a bomb. Was it a bomb?