DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Where did you find "that".
Loose Change - Part II
- Thread starter Kiwiwriter
- Start date
- Status
Mutton-Head, you don't have to feel threatened by everything that's being said against the CTs, because IT IS NOT intended for you. You have clearly said you don't want to be associated with them. We got it. Nobody has ever said you were a CT nut. Gravy and Dubfan were talking about other people. Relax.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Isaac was not at the scene of the WTC collapse on 9/11. I'm really looking for first-hand accounts.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Right here I think. Bottom of page 1, hardly convincing evidence. Isaac was not there on 9/11 and doesn't name anyone who saw a bomb.
I cant believe it, there was no explosives evidence at the WTC site. What the hell is it with you CT's (Edit: and truth doubters - not all CT's). NO EXPLOSIVES EVIDENCE.
What would a court say?
"I heard a bomb going off"
"do you have evidence?"
"Yes I HEARD it and I SAW it"
"Ok, do you have the physical evidence so we can conclude from this point with certainty it was a bomb or bombs"
"I know what I HEARD and SAW but yes, there is NO evidence at the site of a bomb"
"Sorry your testimony wont stand, such an accusation cannot be verified by physical evidence."
What would a court say?
"I heard a bomb going off"
"do you have evidence?"
"Yes I HEARD it and I SAW it"
"Ok, do you have the physical evidence so we can conclude from this point with certainty it was a bomb or bombs"
"I know what I HEARD and SAW but yes, there is NO evidence at the site of a bomb"
"Sorry your testimony wont stand, such an accusation cannot be verified by physical evidence."
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Hey Mutton-Head (man, it's fun to write that. You gotta stick around.) I wasn't saying that you distorted and lied all the time. I was referring to the major published CTs and videomakers. You asked me to point out distortions of yours, though, so here's my list. No doubt many of these are arguable, and some may come more under the headings of "opinion not backed by evidence," and "contradiction." My only criterion was "Is this an accurate representation of the facts?" I'd be glad to discuss these, maybe over the weekend if you want.
I'm amazed at the way you dove into the deep end here! One thing we've counseled people in the past is to take things one step at a time, meaning JUST one step: stop, and don't go again until the issues there have been resolved or you think are unresolvable. You said you were going one step at a time, but I think you went headlong down (probably feels more iike up) several flights.
BTW, perchance have you read my analysis of "Loose Change?"
-G
Post 105
All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long.
Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder
What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance
Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually. It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)
As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.) But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder. It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.
As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account. [Metaphor]
The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from.
This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print.
This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash.
But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)
179
However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used
Nobody can do the math now.
And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces
[You warned me against using metaphors and analogies]
To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”
pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain,
[Analogy]
An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”
the pulverizing of all of the concrete
We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash.
since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.
Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense.
There was no angular momentum
217
Right now, I’m just talking science/physics.
It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.”
Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.
242
Manny says, “There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.
Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc.
But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone.
it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there.
Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “
“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”
Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”
Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored
253
Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history
No, I want them to do their jobs correctly.
Let’s try to keep the metaphors and analogies to a minimum. Show me any cop who throws out crime evidence.
Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators.
Once again, go listen to the interviews. Stop making these guesses. I’m, not making guesses.
I don’t care who is negligent at this point. That’s not for me to decide. Well, my opinion is that whoever was in charge of the investigation was negligent.
My point is though that the NIST report is compromised
I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”
Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.
259
A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert.
Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such.
No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.
The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.
266
I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere.
The firefighters gave their opinions, and nothing was done with those opinions. They were ignored. If you were the head of the investigation, would you have ignored the testimony/opinions of the firefighters?
I would have compared their testimony to the way in which the steel was cut/torn/broken/bent. If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.
I'm amazed at the way you dove into the deep end here! One thing we've counseled people in the past is to take things one step at a time, meaning JUST one step: stop, and don't go again until the issues there have been resolved or you think are unresolvable. You said you were going one step at a time, but I think you went headlong down (probably feels more iike up) several flights.
BTW, perchance have you read my analysis of "Loose Change?"
-G
Post 105
All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long.
Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder
What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance
Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually. It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)
As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.) But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder. It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.
As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account. [Metaphor]
The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from.
This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print.
This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash.
But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)
179
However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used
Nobody can do the math now.
And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces
[You warned me against using metaphors and analogies]
To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”
pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain,
[Analogy]
An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”
the pulverizing of all of the concrete
We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash.
since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.
Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense.
There was no angular momentum
217
Right now, I’m just talking science/physics.
It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.”
Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.
242
Manny says, “There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.
Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc.
But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone.
it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there.
Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “
“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”
Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”
Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored
253
Oh come on, when a plane is blown-up in mid-air this is standard procedure. Are you telling me it’s too much of a leap to apply to a building? Especially the largest terrorist attack ever in US history
No, I want them to do their jobs correctly.
Let’s try to keep the metaphors and analogies to a minimum. Show me any cop who throws out crime evidence.
Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators.
Once again, go listen to the interviews. Stop making these guesses. I’m, not making guesses.
I don’t care who is negligent at this point. That’s not for me to decide. Well, my opinion is that whoever was in charge of the investigation was negligent.
My point is though that the NIST report is compromised
I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”
Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.
259
A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert.
Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such.
No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.
The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.
266
I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere.
The firefighters gave their opinions, and nothing was done with those opinions. They were ignored. If you were the head of the investigation, would you have ignored the testimony/opinions of the firefighters?
I would have compared their testimony to the way in which the steel was cut/torn/broken/bent. If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
The source of that one comes from an article that can be found on prision planet. Not sure if they are the origional source or not though, but we do know it was written by Randy Lavello . I can't post links yet, but if I can let me post the part of the section that deals with that quote...
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ‘pancaked’ as it’s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel’s ‘don’t trust a truss’ explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, “You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don’t just implode like that; this was a demolition.”
Notice that when you read it in context it sounds like he is saying that there had to be bombs in the building because he doesn't buy the pankake theory, and thus there would have to have been bombs involved (from his perspective).
Also let me add this, the VERY next paragraph...
Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, “We think there were bombs set in the building.” Notice he said ‘we’. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn’t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.
The Louie Cacchioli quote has been used in several 9/11 conspiracy arguements, and it's actually not true that he said that. Here's some more text from the article about it...
Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.
Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.
Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
So we already have one "misquote" in this article. What makes anyone so sure that this firefighter in this first quote did indeed even say what this guy said he did? Like I said, the 9/11 conspiracy crowd has a very bad track record regarding quotes and distortions of them.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
One of the biggest crackpots anywhere, although he does deny having said that all those people knew there were bombs in there. I've got a lot more, but I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down. You absolutely have to discount this wacko volunteer's paranoia/delusions of grandeur. He is WAY gone. The only good thing about him is that he's made it his life's work to disparage Dylan Avery (if such a thing is possible).
<pop psychology mode off>
That's correct. He's angrily stated that he was misquoted.
edited to fix grammar
Last edited:
I would like to know why you would rig up explosives to a building AND slam planes into it. According to the main catalog of 9/11 theories, the explosives were needed to bring down the building. Wouldnt that be a huge waste to smash a few planes into it and cause the grounding for a couple of days of all aircraft? Pretty crazy economically. Why not just blow up the building? Im pretty sure the public would STILL be horrified.
Can someone tell me WHY the government would do this, whats the benefit??!?!!! To go to war? The same government who admits NO wmd (though they could have planeted one so simply given the scale of the 9/11 theory) and cant conceal a blowjob known only to two people? Not to mention numerous other blunders, usually known within a small circle initially before exposure. However this massive operation, conducted by half the FBI and CIA, NSA etc went without a hitch, only to be picked up by people watching grainy videos, looking deeper into initial reports on the day and gaining armchair degrees in explosives and structural engineering.
Well I would suggest a weeks work experience in one of the aforementioned sciences to actually get a grasp on a minimal amount of concepts required to pull this off.
During an event until facts are known completely, many things are said and accepted. Even when later shown to be false people still cling on to the initial half facts. Naturally during a terrorist strike it would be safe to assume initially that there could be bombs! it sounds like them! These guys are crazy! panic!
So what. THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE. PHYSICAL. I can say anything I like, but it will not invalidate the evidence, which shows there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.
Why is this SO hard to understand for some? If you accuse someone of stealing your money back in 2001. You think thats all you have to do? Do you have proof? so what if you THINK they did. You cant prove it, even after all these years of trying to.
Dont you want to re-evaluate your thinking?
Cheers
Can someone tell me WHY the government would do this, whats the benefit??!?!!! To go to war? The same government who admits NO wmd (though they could have planeted one so simply given the scale of the 9/11 theory) and cant conceal a blowjob known only to two people? Not to mention numerous other blunders, usually known within a small circle initially before exposure. However this massive operation, conducted by half the FBI and CIA, NSA etc went without a hitch, only to be picked up by people watching grainy videos, looking deeper into initial reports on the day and gaining armchair degrees in explosives and structural engineering.
Well I would suggest a weeks work experience in one of the aforementioned sciences to actually get a grasp on a minimal amount of concepts required to pull this off.
During an event until facts are known completely, many things are said and accepted. Even when later shown to be false people still cling on to the initial half facts. Naturally during a terrorist strike it would be safe to assume initially that there could be bombs! it sounds like them! These guys are crazy! panic!
So what. THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE. PHYSICAL. I can say anything I like, but it will not invalidate the evidence, which shows there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.
Why is this SO hard to understand for some? If you accuse someone of stealing your money back in 2001. You think thats all you have to do? Do you have proof? so what if you THINK they did. You cant prove it, even after all these years of trying to.
Dont you want to re-evaluate your thinking?
Cheers
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Just saw this. I apologize for giving you the wrong impression. My comments were directed at phonies, and you certainly give the impression of being sincere.
[See how easy that is, geggy, Roxdog?]
joseph k.
Scholar
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 86
I can't post links yet so I'll go with the [dot] trick.
Not sure if anyone saw it but here is a LCer's wet dream; a fireman stating there is a bomb in the building on video.
www[dot]whatreallyhappened[dot]com/IMAGES/firefighters_bomb_in_building.wmv
Of course this isn't the smoking gun I have already witnessed it referred to as in a few forums, is vague as to whether the firefighter heard there was a bomb, saw it, or was told so by someone who heard or saw what they assumed was a bomb. This thing is spreading fast as another piece of "evidence" of CD. Just a heads up if you hadn't seen it.
One of said forums:
letsroll911[dot]org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=112730
Not sure if anyone saw it but here is a LCer's wet dream; a fireman stating there is a bomb in the building on video.
www[dot]whatreallyhappened[dot]com/IMAGES/firefighters_bomb_in_building.wmv
Of course this isn't the smoking gun I have already witnessed it referred to as in a few forums, is vague as to whether the firefighter heard there was a bomb, saw it, or was told so by someone who heard or saw what they assumed was a bomb. This thing is spreading fast as another piece of "evidence" of CD. Just a heads up if you hadn't seen it.
One of said forums:
letsroll911[dot]org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=112730
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
You can hear in the backround talk about there being "reports of a secondary device". This doesn't mean for sure that they had found a bomb, but of course they'd tell people to clear out because there was a bomb in the building
Also, I had read elsewhere that that footage wasn't even from 9/11, but was from 1992 or 1993. I'm still looking into it.
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
Also, you can see the firemen sitting down with some of their gear off, and when someone says "there's a bomb in the building" they somewhat reluctantly get up, start to put their gear on, and one of them says "Here we go again". Almost as if to suggest that they had recieved reports just prior of a "secondary device" whenever this incident took place (and maybe found nothing? speculation here).
joseph k.
Scholar
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 86
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
Darat hits the crux of the problem here.
The firemen claim they heard explosions. Mutton-head says this means there must have been explosives.
Now, I have never been near a burning skyscraper when it has fallen, so I wonder, are explosions inconsistent with what is expected for such an event?
If you want to argue that explosions are evidence against the building-falling-on-its-own scenerio, then you have to be able to show that a building-falling-on-its-own would NOT cause explosion like sounds.
So let's get to the real crux of the matter here. On what do you base the implicit assumption that a skyscraper inferno, loaded with all types of things that explode when heated, will not produce explosions or things that sound like explosion when it falls on its own?
How do explosions rule out the conventional explanation?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Man, step away for a few hours....
Any, my short response to you Mutton-Head:
You are the party making the claim in a forum (debate definition, not internet definition) of people that do not agree. The onus is on you to provide evidence. The onus is not upon us to go do your legwork for you.
Please provide this evidence, or go pound sand.
Any, my short response to you Mutton-Head:
You are the party making the claim in a forum (debate definition, not internet definition) of people that do not agree. The onus is on you to provide evidence. The onus is not upon us to go do your legwork for you.
Please provide this evidence, or go pound sand.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
In terms of seeing and hearing explosions, let's keep this woman's ordeal in mind:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1649728&postcount=4405
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1649728&postcount=4405
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I DARE you to search for "explosion" in my index! I mean you, sir (slaps with white glove across face). Search my index or name your second!
http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756
- Status