Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[EventHorizon]

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question.

Translation from Truther to English: I don't read links that destroy my fantasy.

The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.

Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it.

One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them.

As you can see from my translation, this response wasn't really necessary.

 

[000063]

All of them.

Is it spamming if i just reply ""?

 

[000063]

No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.

Grizzly did exactly that.

Why do you need full sentences? You asked for a quantity, not a thesis. you're creating an arbitrary and ridiculous standard. If you asked for a number, why won't you accept a number? If I order a cheeseburger at McDonald's, I don't reject it because it didn't come on a serving salver with a Ming plate and silverware. I get my burger wrapped in wax paper, in a brown paper bag.

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question.

Which you know because you don't read the link.

Wait a second. Something's wrong with that logic.

Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance.

In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete.

What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Faustam and blustam" or something like that? "Sturm und drang" isn't quite correct. I'm thinking of something indicating a storm or a strong wind; a lot of air moving, a lot of noise, but not much actually happening.

 

[000063]

The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.

Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it.

One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them.

Wow, thanks for doing the math.

#000063bookmark

 

[NoahFence]

What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Faustam and blustam" or something like that? "Sturm und drang" isn't quite correct. I'm thinking of something indicating a storm or a strong wind; a lot of air moving, a lot of noise, but not much actually happening.

If it's HOT air, you can just call it 'pulling an ergo'

 

[tsig]

Grizzly did exactly that.

Why do you need full sentences? You asked for a quantity, not a thesis. you're creating an arbitrary and ridiculous standard. If you asked for a number, why won't you accept a number? If I order a cheeseburger at McDonald's, I don't reject it because it didn't come on a serving salver with a Ming plate and silverware. I get my burger wrapped in wax paper, in a brown paper bag.

Which you know because you don't read the link.

Wait a second. Something's wrong with that logic.

What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Faustam and blustam" or something like that? "Sturm und drang" isn't quite correct. I'm thinking of something indicating a storm or a strong wind; a lot of air moving, a lot of noise, but not much actually happening.

delete

 

[ergo]

Why do you need full sentences?

If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.

No one argues that loud noises not were heard while the towers were collapsing. It would have been extraordinary if NO loud noises were heard.

But, there are loud noises and then there are LOUD NOISES. The sounds of large metal structures failing and of objects hitting the ground at high speeds can only move at the speed of sound. The shock wave made by high explosives moves faster than that. It appears on seismographs. It is heard from miles away.

The real test of high explosives wouldn't have been that people right there on the site heard an explosion, but that people a mile away heard it.

(Oh, and if you're arguing that an unprepared building, containing intact walls, furniture, and people, would absorb the sound of high explosives, then that is an easy claim to test. Try it out on a small scale, measure the decibal levels, and get back to us. Unless, of course, you don't WANT to know the truth.)

 

[000063]

If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis

The argument was already stated and you know it. You asked for a number. One was provided. You made up a nonsense standard before you would accept it. I ain't singing, I ain't dancin' to your tune, nossuh.

("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Speaking of info, I aksed you to provide the amount of them who DID hear explosives. Nope? Nothing? Being in the core during such an explosion would cause serious hearing damage, possibly even death. Assuming none of the survivors were killed D), how many had hearing damage or were injured by the overpressure wave explosives would inevitably cause?

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Survivors

After the collapse of the towers, only 23 survivors who were in or below the towers escaped from the debris, including 15 rescue workers

Ah, so you, for some reason, skipped the first link. Nice to know that, as usual, you work counter-intuitively.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.

I'm not an Assyrian, and no one else here is gleaming in purple and gold. This isn't English class, and you don't have red-pen privileges. You are not the arbiter of whether the information was presented according to his Imperial Majesty's Standards. It's a debate. As long as the information is presented in a supported and comprehensible form, everything else is just details. You're like a child insisting his sandwich be cut diagonally before he eats it.

 

[dafydd]

If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.

Cohort-one of the ten divisions in an ancient Roman legion, numbering from 300 to 600 soldiers. Live by your swords,fellow legionnaires!

 

[TruthersLie]

If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.

ROFLMAO.

Ergo giving writing advice.
Have you figured out into vs onto yet?
Prepositions yet?
Qualifying language yet?
How about essentially vs actually?

Once we get past those stumbling blocks, then maybe you can focus and finish that discussion about how a buildings footprint includes the roof of the building across the street.... still waiting for that one...

Keep it up Stundie.... I mean Ergo...

 

[TruthersLie]

If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.

ROFLMAO.

Ergo giving writing advice.
Have you figured out into vs onto yet?
Prepositions yet?
Qualifying language yet?
How about essentially vs actually?

Once we get past those stumbling blocks, then maybe you can focus and finish that discussion about how a buildings footprint includes the roof of the building across the street.... still waiting for that one...

Keep it up Stundie.... I mean Ergo...

 

[000063]

Oh, and I forgot; you're trying to distract us from the fact that none of the people outside the towers had any sort of trauma you would expect from thousands of explosives detonating a few feet away.

http://www.implosionworld.com/news/romania2.htm

That's just a few kilos of boom-boom and it severely damaged nearby houses. Just one tower would've called for tons of explosives.

Bottom line; no trauma within, no trauma without, no eyewitness or audio evidence, no explosives.

 

[ergo]

Just one tower would've called for tons of explosives.

Really? I thought collapse was "inevitable".

I love it when bedunkers trip themselves on their own logic.

 

[ergo]

Stating things plainly is evidently quite difficult for our bee dunkers. They have to generalize first, then couch the rest in conditions and exceptions.



There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses.

_____ of them reported that there were no explosions.

_____ said there were explosions.

_____ of them did not mention explosions.


I've typed it out for you. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. Can I make it any easier for you without actually doing your research for you? If you can't make a simple, plain statement and back it up with facts, I guess we'll have to assume you don't really have a point on this matter.

Thanks for your participation, though. Better luck next time.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I've typed it out for you.

And you've irrationally wasted five minutes of typing, and two days of pretending when 2 seconds of link clicking would have provided you the same answer...

All you have to do is fill in the blanks.

In the time you've spent demanding that people repeat answers, you could have gotten your answer in the first link of post 1191 60 times over, or the first link of post 1192 about another 200 times over.

Can I make it any easier for you without actually doing your research for you?

The research is done. Instead of wasting two days pretending it wasn't done you could have verified the information provided in less then 30 seconds.

If you can't make a simple, plain statement

What part of

14

is so hard to wrap around your pinky?

and back it up with facts

What part of

Stairwell B

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Survivors
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/
http://cnettv.cnet.com/wtc-collapse-survivors/9742-1_53-50044830.html

Do you not understand to be "supporting our facts?"

I'm trying to understand your logic... you would rather spend

I guess we'll have to assume you don't really have a point on this matter.

When presented with an answer and supporting links your response was calling every respondent a "beetard" AKA "retard" and pretending your questions were never answered. The only point you have specifically conveyed is that you're willing to mock anyone who disagrees with your 9/11 truth leanings indiscriminate of whether your peers are willing to answer your questions seriously or stoop to your standards of debate etiquette. It's one thing to ignore snark responses that specifically try to ridicule you... It's a completely different matter when you ask a question, have it answered, and then post away pretending it wasn't answered.

Thanks for your participation, though. Better luck next time.

Same to you

 

[ergo]

There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses.

_____ of them reported that there were no explosions.

_____ said there were explosions.

_____ of them did not mention explosions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You will have to live with what was provided to you already regardless of whether you are satisfied or not. If you pretend the information hasn't already been posted then that's you're problem. That's about all that's left to be said at this point.

 

[ergo]

You will have to live with what was provided to you

Nope, I don't.

 

[Woody-]

The survivors from the core did not mention there were no explosives, they also didn't mention that there were no UFOs. They also didn't talk about not seeing unicorns nor did the discuss not seeing bigfoot. There is no end to the list of imaginary things that they didn't talk about not seeing.