Video online again: "WTC Not a Demolition"

[twinstead]

Yup. Quote mining, revisionism and selective interpretation. Gee, how original.

Accusing somebody of doing exactly what you do. Gee, how original.

 

[A W Smith]

Here's an index to the scenes in the WTC Not a Demolition vid. An advantage of Google/Youtube is that you can link directly to scenes, which this index page used to do.

Thanks Gravy. Bookmarked.

 

[Travis]

A great resource. I'm glad we have it back.

 

[ergo]

You already had your ass handed to you on that subject in another thread.

Yes, I'm sure this is what happened.

And why would this video cover anything about the Bazant crush down crush up theory? That's not the topic of the video, or this thread for that matter.

It should be. Otherwise, what are you doing here?

None of your debunking efforts ever amount to anything. None of you have ever been able to point to a mainstream truth claim and show undeniably that it is false. The best you can do is try and cast doubt or confusion. And usually just confusion. That's all you do.

If you want to prove that WTC is "Not a Demolition", show why three steel-framed buildings would and should collapse straight down and completely from two plane crashes and minor fires, (while other buildings didn't) and why, if you're discussing principles of physics and engineering, this has happened and would happen, again and again, under similar circumstances. How do you do this? Good question. That's what you should be working on. Until then you're not terribly credible.

 

[A W Smith]

Yes, I'm sure this is what happened.

your not, but everyone else is

It should be. Otherwise, what are you doing here?

again, its not all about Bazants limiting case.

None of your debunking efforts ever amount to anything. None of you have ever been able to point to a mainstream truth claim and show undeniably that it is false. The best you can do is try and cast doubt or confusion. And usually just confusion. That's all you do.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/2007truthmovementpoll
72. Please rank these "debunkers" according to how effective their opposition to the TM has been, most effective to least

1) debunking911.com 21%
2) Popular Mechanics book & article 11%
3) JREF/Mark Roberts 30%
4) Screw Loose Change Blog 17%
5) 911myths.com 20%
6) Other: Nist FAQ, 1%

If you want to prove that WTC is "Not a Demolition", show why three steel-framed buildings would and should collapse straight down and completely from two plane crashes and minor fires, (while other buildings didn't) and why, if you're discussing principles of physics and engineering, this has happened and would happen, again and again, under similar circumstances. How do you do this? Good question. That's what you should be working on. Until then you're not terribly credible.

Already done,

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies,organizationsandindivi

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4969965#post4969965

 

[beachnut]

... ...

This is your evidence, , this is your fate, ; failure. If only you knew what the topic was.

Nice video. It takes a critical mind to comprehend.

 

[TruthersLie]

Don't worry.

Ergo's argument has fallen into its own footprint faster than freefall.

have you figured out into vs onto yet ergo?

How about essentially vs actually?

center of mass?

Hey what was the difference on that caracas tower fire again?

boy do you have egg on your face.

 

[Thunder]

The best you can do is try and cast doubt or confusion. And usually just confusion. That's all you do.

err.....are you talking about "debunkers" or 9-11 Truthers?

cause seriously, I'm confused.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Ergo vs Gravy? All I could think of was the classic short film, Bambi Versus Godzilla.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If you want to prove that WTC is "Not a Demolition", show why three steel-framed buildings would and should collapse straight down and completely from two plane crashes and minor fires, (while other buildings didn't) and why, if you're discussing principles of physics and engineering, this has happened and would happen, again and again, under similar circumstances. How do you do this? Good question. That's what you should be working on. Until then you're not terribly credible.

It's not up to anyone to show you, it's up to you to prove that the WTC was a "demolition".

Get to it, chop chop!

You're not credible either, you have yet to show evidence for anything you claim or say. It's your burden of proof, not ours or anyones.

Get to it, chop chop!