Welcome to the Twilight Zone

[bje]

That is fine. My claim in regards to Gravy's movie is that puffs occur before collaps initiation (cause of puffs is beyond the claim).

But they don't.

The simple fact that you included the above shows that you have reasonable doubt in your claim,...

I have absolutely no doubt.

... such that the inclusion of the second statement, erases any reasonable doubt.

The inclusion demonstrates that you must rely on other evidence IF you insist on claiming puffs came out before coallapse initiation. The other evidence, including videos, refute you.

But you failed to understand my claim, and as such, shot yourself in the foot by including it.

I understand both your claim why you are upset at having been debunked.

You are the loser. Have a good day.

Truthers always get upset at being debunked.

 

[Pardalis]

From the OP:

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

How many times are we going to have to say you can't prove a negative?

 

[Pardalis]

During the winters here in MN, it looks like puffs are coming out of people's mouths. I'm pretty sure no explosives are involved.

Watch out for the big explosion!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...123&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

 

[boloboffin]

Well, lets assume for a moment that the C in CD means controlled. And lets assume that by saying controlled, we mean engineered. One could then call a CD an engineered event.

Thus, if engineering a CD to actually look and sound like a fire induced natural collapse, one would not want loud obvious pre-collapse explosions.

One possible way to engineer it is as follows;

1.Therm?te cut significant amount of steel structure pre-collapse quietly. Steel structure weakens and begins to buckle as observed.

2.A single detonation event causes collapse initiation in upper part. Sound is percieved as first collapse impact.

3. Top down CD ensues. Sounds are percieved as progressive collapse impacts (ie rumbling sounds as each floor impacts the next; I'm sure you've heard Hoffman describe this).

Again Gravy, CD is an ENGINEERED event, and we all know that things can be engineered to suit specific needs. The above is one example from a layman. Don't you have an imagination?

And when Satan put the bones in the ground, he made sure to give them all the appearance of evolution.

Sizzler, you're engaged in a long, drawn-out exercise of unfalsifiability. Hoffman is a fool. Your rationalization may satisfy your imaginative need to not deal with the actual evidence (such as the seismographs that lack the distinctive spikes of "detonation events"), but we see that as the pitiful excuse that it is.

There is no such thing as Top-Down Demolition. Charlatans like Hoffman and Gage have bought into that notion to explain why 1 & 2 appear like no other controlled demolition on earth, but this is because they were not engineered. There was no control. The only human contribution to the collapse of the towers was terrorists flying large passenger jets into them.

ETA: I'm beginning to suspect that Sizzler has passed his password to Doh'P.

 

[pomeroo]

Oh my god, Beachnut made a claim!!!! hooray!



I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?

By the way, the charlatan Max Photon was reduced to a quivering blob of protoplasm by a straightforward and extremely obvious question. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at it--

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

 

[pomeroo]

You are the loser. Have a good day.

How's that apology coming along? Remember, there were people here who gave you the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't among them.

 

[Sizzler]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?

Let me demonstrate....

Your rationalization may satisfy your imaginative need to not deal with the actual evidence (such as the seismographs that lack the distinctive spikes of "detonation events"), but we see that as the pitiful excuse that it is.

That isn't true. Not all detonation events show up on local seismic records.

Here is one example,

Hoffman:

But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

There is no such thing as Top-Down Demolition.

No such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538

 

[beachnut]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?
Let me demonstrate....
That isn't true. Not all detonation events show up on local seismic records.
Here is one example,
Hoffman:
o such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538

Hoffman? A software engineer for your information? Hoffman; he never stops to check what he posts? Open loop wrong man. I think he still lists the terrorists alive, yet even in the same logic, he is dead (look it up, he died; just like the terrorist are alive; name game). Sorry, you must choose some real stuff, not the errors from Hoffman to display the fact you are still nowhere, it the train of stupid and false information, still in the station at a place we call in the TZ, nowhere. Hoffman makes major errors, you have made an error and not checked your source; poor research methods yield poor results exposing ignorance.

Oops, you posted proof, with that video, that CD did not happen at the WTC complex. Wow. You are either a truther, and like most truthers you post your own debunking without knowing it. Or you fell for my post so you could use this again to prove my point. The dust and smoke was expelled by falling building not blast effect from explosives. You just proved a few points. Good job (got u 2 post the video I planted; neat)

Wait, you say you are not a 9/11 truth movement no fact guy, but you post their lies. Why? Are you a 9/11 truth guy with no evidence, just hearsay false information and lies? You sure do post a lot of their false stuff.

 

[Sizzler]

Hoffman? A software engineer for your information? Hoffman; he never stops to check what he posts? Open loop wrong man. I think he still has the terrorist alive, yet even in the same logic, he is dead already. Sorry, you must choose some real stuff, not the errors from Hoffman to display the fact you are still nowhere, it the train of stupid and false information, still in the station at a place we call in the TZ, nowhere. Hoffman makes major errors, you have made an error and not checked your source; poor research methods yield poor results exposing ignorance.

Oops, you posted proof, with that video, that CD did not happen at the WTC complex. Wow. You are either a truther, and like most truthers you post your own debunking without knowing it. Or you fell for my post so you could use this again to prove my point. The dust and smoke was expelled by falling building not blast effect from explosives. You just proved a few points. Good job

Huh?

Claim #1 made by debunker-->no such thing as top down CD.

Fact-->Untrue proof-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2...com/node/11538

Claim #2 made by debunker-->detonation events always show up on seismic recordings

Fact-->untrue proof-->http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html


Care to attack my argument, instead of me?

 

[stateofgrace]

No such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538

Can you provide an example where a large commercial aircraft was flown, at high speed into the building prior to the top down demolition?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Hokulele]

Claim #2 made by debunker-->detonation events always show up on seismic recordings

Fact-->untrue proof-->http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html


Care to attack my argument, instead of me?

Too bad you had to find an extreme example to make your point.

When the Aladdin came crashing down last April from the force of 233 pounds of explosives, the demolition company's president observed, "It is not a building I'd want to be in, in an earthquake."

The 32-year-old landmark was so easy to drop that Controlled Demolition Inc. President Mark Loizeaux reduced the amount of explosives by 137 pounds from what he initially thought it would take.

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.

Care to find an example more on the scale of the events in NYC that do not register?

 

[beachnut]

Huh?
Claim #1 made by debunker-->no such thing as top down CD.
Fact-->Untrue proof-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2...com/node/11538
Claim #2 made by debunker-->detonation events always show up on seismic recordings
Fact-->untrue proof-->http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html

Care to attack my argument, instead of me?

LOL, the Las Vegas Review Journal! Wowzer! good job ignoring the air pressure vs. blast pressure wave! super

I think you are the best super researcher I have seen, I (am) (am not) going to use the Las Vegas Super Review Journal for all my engineering scientific needs. Super!

Breaking nues ---- UNLV 68, Colorado State 51 Cuelll
Huckabee Wins Kansas caucuses
Wow, Now I have the fact packed LVRJ! super (broken link, super duper) are you sure you are not a truther?

Care to attack my argument, instead of me?

I can just let you post, you do both all on your own. Watch the posts discover your new super source of... lol...

 

[Gravy]

I just discovered that my Google Video clips that I've posted in this thread aren't jumping to the minute and second placeholders as they're supposed to. The video starts from the beginning each time. I don't know why that's changed. My apologies for any confusion that's caused.

 

[boloboffin]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?

Who in FSM's name said that controlled demolition wasn't an engineered event?

That isn't true. Not all detonation events show up on local seismic records.

Here is one example,

Hoffman:

But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html

How about the seismographs set up at the site to document the collapse, as is required of all controlled demolition?

Some more fantastic quotes from the article that you tiptoed around:

When the Aladdin came crashing down last April from the force of 233 pounds of explosives, the demolition company's president observed, "It is not a building I'd want to be in, in an earthquake."

The 32-year-old landmark was so easy to drop that Controlled Demolition Inc. President Mark Loizeaux reduced the amount of explosives by 137 pounds from what he initially thought it would take.

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.

But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust -- where the release of strain results in powerful earthquakes -- the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.

Hoffman fails you again. When the quote is put into context, you find out that the charges were drastically reduced from what's normally expected from a building that size, 37% less.

Now how many pounds of explosives do you think were necessary to have brought down either of the towers or the 47-story 7 World Trade? Enough to have left a characteristic spike on seismographs. That's why seismographs are used to document collapses. Blanchard says they would have shown up and he's been documenting CDs all his life. I'm taking his word over yours.

There's the two buildings, Sizzler. The Aladdin is 100 m shorter than 7 World Trade. The Towers dwarfed 7. You're pointing to a flimsy hotel and trying to use the miniscule charges needed to take that building down to the Towers?

Really?

No such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538

Jiminy Christmas. A three-story barn you're comparing to the Towers. Hey, I had cousins who blew up ant hills with firecrackers? Would you or Hoffman like to subpoena them?

Could you point out any, ANY, detonation events in the Towers the way I can in that three story barn, Sizzler? Would you care to listen to the only demo expert the CTers have ever gotten close to their side? Jowenko is adamant that 1 and 2 were simple collapses. And man, does that interviewer try to get him to browbeat him into saying it was a CD too. But why is Jowenko so firm in his opinion? Because it started from the top.

 

[Gravy]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?

I don't understand how your scenario was accomplished. I suggest you take a few weeks, start at the beginning, and explain step by step how this operation could have been engineered, how the workers and work remained unseen, how the work could have possibly survived the impacts and fires, what types of explosives/incendiaries/timers/detonating equipment, etc. would work reliably in those conditions, How much was needed and where it would need to be placed, why there were no explosions, why the work left no sign on any piece of steel or elsewhere, and how it corresponds to the observed events: buildings disintegrating, walls bowing inward, etc.

I've been asking people to tell us how it could be done since April, 2006. Not a single person has attempted it.

You say it's an engineered event, Sizzler.

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?

 

[Sizzler]

Who in FSM's name said that controlled demolition wasn't an engineered event?



How about the seismographs set up at the site to document the collapse, as is required of all controlled demolition?

Some more fantastic quotes from the article that you tiptoed around:



Hoffman fails you again. When the quote is put into context, you find out that the charges were drastically reduced from what's normally expected from a building that size, 37% less.

Now how many pounds of explosives do you think were necessary to have brought down either of the towers or the 47-story 7 World Trade? Enough to have left a characteristic spike on seismographs. That's why seismographs are used to document collapses. Blanchard says they would have shown up and he's been documenting CDs all his life. I'm taking his word over yours.

[qimg]http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Aladdin7.jpg[/qimg]

There's the two buildings, Sizzler. The Aladdin is 100 m shorter than 7 World Trade. The Towers dwarfed 7. You're pointing to a flimsy hotel and trying to use the miniscule charges needed to take that building down to the Towers?

Really?



Jiminy Christmas. A three-story barn you're comparing to the Towers. Hey, I had cousins who blew up ant hills with firecrackers? Would you or Hoffman like to subpoena them?

Could you point out any, ANY, detonation events in the Towers the way I can in that three story barn, Sizzler? Would you care to listen to the only demo expert the CTers have ever gotten close to their side? Jowenko is adamant that 1 and 2 were simple collapses. And man, does that interviewer try to get him to browbeat him into saying it was a CD too. But why is Jowenko so firm in his opinion? Because it started from the top.

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......

 

[Hokulele]

Well, after this latest post, I am going to agree with pomeroo and state that Sizzler really isn't here to learn anything, and isn't worth wasting the time used to compose responses. Maybe Chris Iz will come back and demonstrate once again that there are people who post here to ask legitimate questions . . .

 

[stateofgrace]

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......

Why don't you show me an example of a top down demolition of a building after a commercial aircraft had slammed in to it at high speed?

Oh wait, you can't.........

 

[beachnut]

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event) outside of a terrorist attack?

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......

One dumb post. There are examples of progressive collapse, you have failed to find them. Are you not able to do your own research? By the look of your posts, you are not. You used the video I showed you to prove the air rushing out of the WTC was not from explosives blast effects. Wow. You have now asked a silly question! Do you watch lawyer shows? You know, do not ask the question if you do not know the answer.

 

[Calcas]

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?

I think it's sooper sekret military shiate. It's done with stuff that nobody else knows about yet. (Not even the military...LOL)

It's pretty much the same argument that the UFO folks claim. It's simply too advanced for us to understand it.

You see, "it was done with technology that hasn't been publicized yet" is an airtight escape clause. Nuttier than hell but what do they claim that isn't?