Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

ergo said:
Noah, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, give you an opportunity to explain your theory, but all you can do is post junk links. Can you try explaining things in your own words? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Rather than trying to trap people into endless semantic arguments, why not discuss something of substance and tell us why we should believe that anything other than airplane crashes caused the collapses? The onus is on you, since there is no evidence for any other cause.

If you're trying to get at something by wandering off into these peripheral discussions, then get at it, already.
 
NoahFence said:
I did?!?
Click to expand...

You should not express that as a question.
You should have named ergo's claim by it's proper designation: A LIE.
You should quote some relevant posts to show to the world clearly and unambiguously that ergo lied.
 
ergo said:
Noah, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, give you an opportunity to explain your theory, but all you can do is post junk links. Can you try explaining things in your own words? Thanks.

PS: my guess is the page Noah linked to is contaminated.
Click to expand...

Junk links? It's a picture for crying out loud. I guess your computer doesn't like pictures that debunk your theories? Pretty neat feature. I'll put in a caption for you.

wtc-Impact_4.JPG


BIG FRIGGIN EXPLOSION rocks WTC after massive aircraft strikes the tower at 500 miles per hour. Divine intervention required for anything in the impact zone to survive. More at 11.
 
ergo said:
Noah, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, give you an opportunity to explain your theory, but all you can do is post junk links. Can you try explaining things in your own words? Thanks.
.
Click to expand...

No, your not. You're playing a stupid game. You have been told that his statement is in context to 9/11(by several people). This you ignore. This is YOUR problem.
 
DGM, you are having comprehension problems. Noah has stated that selectively placed explosives could not bring the towers down, that they would need "tons" of explosives to be brought down by CD.

Oystein disagrees with this and, if you had any comprehension of your own arguments, so do you.
 
NoahFence said:
Junk links? It's a picture for crying out loud. I guess your computer doesn't like pictures that debunk your theories? Pretty neat feature. I'll put in a caption for you.

[qimg]http://no757.0catch.com/_webimages/wtc-Impact_4.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The text to your link is not visible in your posts in two different browsers I've tried. It only appears when your posts are quoted. And it leads to a junk page.
 
ergo said:
DGM, you are having comprehension problems. Noah has stated that selectively placed explosives could not bring the towers down, that they would need "tons" of explosives to be brought down by CD.

Oystein disagrees with this and, if you had any comprehension of your own arguments, so do you.
Click to expand...

How does Oystein disagree with this?
 
And unless you have some evidence to support your assertions, no - you CANNOT demo a building three times the size of the world record with FEWER explosives. I base that purely on assumptions, which you people are free to do - which means I am too. Well, assumptions and common sense which is the key ingredient you people lack.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is your friend.
 
:)

So you've decided now that your assumptions and common sense were wrong in this case?
 
ergo said:
DGM, you are having comprehension problems. Noah has stated that selectively placed explosives could not bring the towers down, that they would need "tons" of explosives to be brought down by CD.

Oystein disagrees with this and, if you had any comprehension of your own arguments, so do you.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I did not see that post. A while back he was saying that "in the context" of 9/11" it was impossible.

As far as the number of explosives are concerned it would not tale a "huge amount". Strategical placed and relatively large individual charges (as compared to normal, due to no "pre-weakening") would do the trick. The point is moot though. Any amount would be painfully noticeable. There's no way around this.
 
Last edited:
So it's still your opinion that tons of explosives would be needed to bring the Twin Towers down?
 
ergo said:
So it's still your opinion that tons of explosives would be needed to bring the Twin Towers down?
Click to expand...
I did some work on this years ago and came up with a number of 1400 lbs of RDX. The problem is most would need to be along one parameter wall. This is assuming no plane damage (in other words not on 9/11). After the planes and the fires, no explosives of course would be needed (as proven by math and engineering).

;)
 
ergo said:
So it's still your opinion that tons of explosives would be needed to bring the Twin Towers down?
Click to expand...

Is it still your opinion that it was impossible for damage and fire alone to bring the Twin Towers down?
 
^ This!

Ergo:

Aircraft damage and fire takes into consideration most of the observables. This is the question you need to answer AND support your conclusions. The "truth" movement thus far has failed miserable at this to date. Can you do any better?

(Don't start with your "rubble is a different kind of mass" stuff. This is the kind of thinking that has got the "truthers" where they are today).
 
NoahFence said:
Yea, I totally changed my opinion in the 10 or so minutes it took for you to respond....
Click to expand...

Assuming that's sarcasm, I would just ask as a final question to Noah:

Could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?
 
ergo said:
Assuming that's sarcasm, I would just ask as a final question to Noah:

Could the towers have collapsed with just a few strategically placed bombs on 2 or 3 consecutive upper floors? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

In 1993, a 1300-lb bomb couldn't do enough structural damage. Maybe the van should have been driven to the 90th floor?

Oh, and please get to your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom