IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 debunking , 911 debunking resources , ae911truth , controlled demolition , richard gage , world trade center , wtc 7

Closed Thread
Old 25th July 2011, 11:51 AM   #601
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
So what are you saying, kiddo?

The air temp outside the actual flames themselves wasn't hot?

...or are you suggesting water doesn't turn to gas?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 11:52 AM   #602
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
This is for you, clayton:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=215120
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 11:55 AM   #603
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
I've replied to Edx on this point already or didn't you bother to read what I said?
Didn't you bother to read my responce?

Explosions are common and expected, I've asked you several times now how do you tell the difference between someone hearing and experiencing a bomb or something else.

Quote:
There is no conclusive proof that explosives were used nor is there any to say they weren't. Just claiming that exploding sounds can mean any number of things adds nothing to this debate...
Yes it does, you claim that all evidence points to people hearing and experiencing explosives. So considering that plenty of things can cause explosions and people reporting explosions are fully expected in fires, what evidence do you have that says they specifically experienced explosives rather than something else? How many times do I have to ask you the same questions?



Quote:
although if you debunkers are allowed to say that an explosive is not necessarily a sound due to explosives because there are other real life examples where this is so
Not only are there plenty of things that can explode and I posted 3 examples on this page including 2 videos directly to you in my post you ignored but I also showed you a video with the sources that show only a few example of how its normal for people to use words like "explosion", "blast" and a phrase like "sounding like bombs" to not only describe things that weren't explosives but that they used those words to describe things they already knew weren't bombs when they said it.



Quote:
then I can say that the global collapse of WTC7 is not necessarily due to fire since the most common example of such collapses is with CDs.
You can say that, and you'd be stupid because you have to ignore all the aspects around WTC7s collapse. Now if you're saying I am ignoring something with these explosion witness', please do provide the evidence so that I can see how you are going about telling the difference between someone hearing a bomb vs something else like a transformer explosion or backdraft. Since blast injuries are common in every other bombing I'd also like to know how you rationalise no one sustaining any on 911 when all these bombs were going off all over the place.


Quote:
You can't have it all ways so the argument is circular and worth nothing.
The two arguments you gave don't relate to each other, but I hasten to add that you're defending Richard gage, someone who wants to be able to say huge explosions went off flinging steel and pulverizing concrete but no videos picked up such gigantic explosions.

Last edited by Edx; 25th July 2011 at 12:08 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 11:56 AM   #604
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Yep, there you go, it did fall straight down. Even NIST in NCSTAR 1A says it did...as one block.

Can I help you with anything else, or do you see the building moving sideways or toppling over?
So, we can take the word of an anonymous internet truther that WTC7 does NOT topple over sideways, or we can choose to accept the actual video footage of WTC 7 as it indeed topples over sideways:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I will stick to hard physical evidence, thank you. You might be able to persuade agents of the Empire that these are "not the 'droids they're looking for," but your mind games aren't working on me, nor on anyone else that has a nanogram of sense.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:06 PM   #605
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You're arguing that the collapse was symmetrical, so it must have been CD, but even CDs aren't symmetrical, so even though the collapse wasn't symmetrical, it still must have been a CD. It doesn't take a three-digit IQ to see that you haven't actually got an argument at all.

Dave
What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpS...eature=related
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:11 PM   #606
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
So, we can take the word of an anonymous internet truther that WTC7 does NOT topple over sideways, or we can choose to accept the actual video footage of WTC 7 as it indeed topples over sideways:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I will stick to hard physical evidence, thank you. You might be able to persuade agents of the Empire that these are "not the 'droids they're looking for," but your mind games aren't working on me, nor on anyone else that has a nanogram of sense.
Nor do your silly assertions that the building toppled over work on me. I know you debunkers like to claim you are some kind of special beast but you are not.

WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.

Is this some kind of sick joke. I thought you JREFers had a good reputation but now I see you distort beyond imagination. Stand a matchstick on its end and it will topple over. Did WTC7 do that.....NO!

Come back to me when you can see properly. No wonder you were duped on 9/11.

Here's a building which did topple over....I don't think WTC7 did that. You debunkers are getting really bad in your old age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ

Last edited by mrkinnies; 25th July 2011 at 12:18 PM.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:12 PM   #607
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit
AaRGgghh!! So close to actually having a shred of credibility!

Quote:
straight down into its own footprint
However fleeting it was.
Quote:
WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?
Yep.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:13 PM   #608
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.
"His" rebuttal?
Kiddo - his rebuttal is irrefutable video evidence.

Did ya get a chance to check out my thread yet? It's directed at YOU.....
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:18 PM   #609
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Nor do your silly assertions that the building toppled over work on me. I know you debunkers like to claim you are some kind of special beast but you are not.

WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.

Is this some kind of sick joke. I thought you JREFers had a good reputation but now I see you distort beyond imagination. Stand a matchstick on its end and it will topple over. Did WTC7 do that.....NO!

Come back to me when you can see properly. No wonder you were duped on 9/11.
I'd like an answer to my question I asked you on the previous page, if you're working in a building near to one getting demolished and the demolition company tells you its going to come down cleanly, symmetrically, into its own footprint and your building is across a 4 lane street when the building they demolish falls over the street and hits your building, are you saying you would not question the idea that it fell "cleanly and symmetrically, into its own footprint"? or would you sue because it clearly did not and they misled you?
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:20 PM   #610
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpS...eature=related


Are you freaking deaf?!

I work with sound every day, please do tell me what you hear in this video so I can embarrass you about how sound works.

And what about the dust cloud? Gage claims that can only happen with a demolition but as Chris showed you in his videos that is what will happen when a building collapses either from explosive demolition, Verinage demolition or fire. Explosives arent even creating the dust cloud, thats still the building crushing into itself. What do you think the dust cloud tells you?

Once ps: if it fell accross a 4 lane street critically damaging the building there, it can't be very symmetrical and clean straight into its own footprint can it?

Last edited by Edx; 25th July 2011 at 12:25 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:22 PM   #611
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,745
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Nor do your silly assertions that the building toppled over work on me. I know you debunkers like to claim you are some kind of special beast but you are not.

WTC7 clearly falls straight down and your rebuttal of this is quite bizarre.

Is this some kind of sick joke. I thought you JREFers had a good reputation but now I see you distort beyond imagination. Stand a matchstick on its end and it will topple over. Did WTC7 do that.....NO!

Come back to me when you can see properly. No wonder you were duped on 9/11.

Here's a building which did topple over....I don't think WTC7 did that. You debunkers are getting really bad in your old age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ
You probably missed this part.



Next stop, Barclay Street and Fitterman Hall.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:25 PM   #612
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
"His" rebuttal?
Kiddo - his rebuttal is irrefutable video evidence.

Did ya get a chance to check out my thread yet? It's directed at YOU.....
What, that the building rotated sideways and didn't fall downward but out to the side; that is what to topple over means. Are you mad too?
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:27 PM   #613
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
You probably missed this part.

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/...5/WTC7lean.jpg

Next stop, Barclay Street and Fitterman Hall.
Oh wow, the building has fallen straight down and has now moved to the side also as the top nears the ground! Did it topple over at the start or throughout most of global collapse? NO
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:33 PM   #614
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,745
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Oh wow, the building has fallen straight down and has now moved to the side also as the top nears the ground! Did it topple over at the start or throughout most of global collapse? NO
In other words, it didn't fall straight down. Thank you.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:34 PM   #615
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
What, that the building rotated sideways and didn't fall downward but out to the side; that is what to topple over means. Are you mad too?
???
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:36 PM   #616
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Are you freaking deaf?!

I work with sound every day, please do tell me what you hear in this video so I can embarrass you about how sound works.

And what about the dust cloud? Gage claims that can only happen with a demolition but as Chris showed you in his videos that is what will happen when a building collapses either from explosive demolition, Verinage demolition or fire. Explosives arent even creating the dust cloud, thats still the building crushing into itself. What do you think the dust cloud tells you?

Once ps: if it fell accross a 4 lane street critically damaging the building there, it can't be very symmetrical and clean straight into its own footprint can it?
I didn't say it all landed clean into its own footprint. That's what YOU imply. This was a 47 storey building - very tall even in the US. The start of global collapse was straight down into its own footprint since it didn't topple faster than it fell, in fact it hardly toppled at all. What it did as the roof came closer to the ground is less clear but the deviation from vertical was within several degrees ; not 30 or 50 or 90 degrees, a FEW degrees although for such a tall building that is to be expected and would have been enough to send falling debris over a wider area than the building previously occupied. Even then the post collapse photo evidence shows minimal damage to surrounding buildings.

Please feel free to embarrass me with how sound works. I look forward to it.

Last edited by mrkinnies; 25th July 2011 at 12:39 PM.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:38 PM   #617
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
In other words, it didn't fall straight down. Thank you.
The start of global collapse saw the building fall straight down or are you claiming it toppled completely sideways too?

Come on, someone with 13000 odd posts must be able to do better than that.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:41 PM   #618
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Even then the post collapse photo evidence shows minimal damage to surrounding buildings.
AH AHA HA HA HA!!!

yikes.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:42 PM   #619
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
come on kiddies er...kinnies, how'd these magical explosives survive? Answer in my thread "Twoofer Challenge" and get your little 9/11 leader a cool grand.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:45 PM   #620
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,745
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
The start of global collapse saw the building fall straight down or are you claiming it toppled completely sideways too?

Come on, someone with 13000 odd posts must be able to do better than that.
Yeah, I should know truther semantics by now.

You might want to look at your membership agreement if you're going to start personalizing arguments, by the way.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:47 PM   #621
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
AH AHA HA HA HA!!!

yikes.


The building was much much taller than the buildings immediately adjacent to it, yet the Verizon and Post Office buildings to the right and left are hardly touched. If I had been in those buildings when WTC7 collapsed I'd have been laughing like you do to - laughing with relief.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:48 PM   #622
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Good God these threads are tiresome. Can there BE too many multi-page threads about semantics and personal incredulity?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:50 PM   #623
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
come on kiddies er...kinnies, how'd these magical explosives survive? Answer in my thread "Twoofer Challenge" and get your little 9/11 leader a cool grand.
How the heck should I know, I was 3000 odd miles away.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:51 PM   #624
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/wtc7_pile_s.jpg

The building was much much taller than the buildings immediately adjacent to it, yet the Verizon and Post Office buildings to the right and left are hardly touched. If I had been in those buildings when WTC7 collapsed I'd have been laughing like you do to - laughing with relief.
You might want to show how it was impossible for the buildings to fall like they did without CD before you go all willy-nilly about this subject. At least try SOMETHING other than incredulity. You act as if this forum is some kind of island where we are standing alone against the world's structural engineers.

You should keep in mind the one standing alone is your little cult.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:51 PM   #625
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpS...eature=related
Likely thats a prefab concrete building and notoriously easy to knock down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point which is why they stopped building them

Nothing like the steel frame construction of the much larger WTC7

Last edited by sheeplesnshills; 25th July 2011 at 12:53 PM.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:52 PM   #626
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
How the heck should I know, I was 3000 odd miles away.
It's called a theory. Perhaps you've heard the term.

Now go ahead in my thread and explain it. YOU CANNOT HAVE CD WITHOUT THE EXPLOSIVES, kiddo.

If there were no explosives, there was no CD. Period. If there's no CD, there's no conspiracy. See how this works?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:52 PM   #627
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Yeah, I should know truther semantics by now.

You might want to look at your membership agreement if you're going to start personalizing arguments, by the way.
I apologise, that was below the belt.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:53 PM   #628
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,745
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Even then the post collapse photo evidence shows minimal damage to surrounding buildings.




Orly?

Then what tore out a large chunk of Fitterman Hall? A botched CD?
__________________

Last edited by TJM; 25th July 2011 at 12:56 PM.
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 12:55 PM   #629
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,745
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
I apologise, that was below the belt.
No worries.

Things like that might make your stay a brief one. Just some advice.
__________________
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:01 PM   #630
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/...an-hall-02.jpg

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/...l_wtc7crop.jpg

Orly?

Then what tore out a large chunk of Fitterman Hall? A botched CD?
Clearly some of the facade landed there as you can see the grid of windows butting up to the building. Had this been an official CD there would be cause for alarm but this wasn't so a very small amount of damage relative to what could have been was perhaps inevitable.
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:04 PM   #631
mrkinnies
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
It's called a theory. Perhaps you've heard the term.

Now go ahead in my thread and explain it. YOU CANNOT HAVE CD WITHOUT THE EXPLOSIVES, kiddo.

If there were no explosives, there was no CD. Period. If there's no CD, there's no conspiracy. See how this works?
I can't prove the use of explosives but doesn't mean they weren't used.

My theory is that they were - how's that?
mrkinnies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:10 PM   #632
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
I didn't say it all landed clean into its own footprint.
Uh yes you did...

...it's supporting structure needed to be pulled ahead of the main block for the building to finally fall cleanly and symmetrically (which it did) - here.

"fell straight down into its own footprint;" - here

So you think it fell cleanly and symmetrically straight down into its own footprint. I love it when truthers start denying things they've said.




Quote:
That's what YOU imply.
No, only when you're misrepresenting what NIST says.

Quote:
This was a 47 storey building - very tall even in the US. The start of global collapse was straight down into its own footprint since it didn't topple faster than it fell, in fact it hardly toppled at all.
You claim at the start it should have fallen over and several times since. I made this point a few pages back:

If you weaken and destroy a few or 1 critical connections holding up a floor above, but not every single column, the lower floor might now not have enough load bearing strength to hold up that top floor. At that point its going to collapse, isn't it, but you claim that floor wont just fall down onto the floor below but is going to fall off to the side despite zero lateral energy available to do that.


Quote:
Please feel free to embarrass me with how sound works. I look forward to it.
My pleasure.

You claim you can't hear any explosion sounds. I'm not sure what video you think you are watching but I can hear explosion sounds and they distort the microphone. The mic on the camera is so bad that all sounds seem to distort it including the heavy wind at the start. Then when the demolition starts, which is clearly audible, its so loud that its harder to make out individual detonations as much as other videos.

EDIT: And it turns out there were plenty of cameras taping that demolition that show how loud it was. See my post here.

But we dont just have one crappy video taping the collapses we have numerous professional cameras and microphones from various angles and distances. None pick up a hint of any explosive detonations, there's not even a recording as poor as the one you gave.

Here's some collapse videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFSF2VyaoA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

I tried to quickly find the one with the reporter interviewing a women with WTC7 behind her as it collapses when she says "be carefull of your baby!" but I couldn't, but there's no detonations there either.

Any of these could have picked up the explosions.

And what about WTC1 and 2? We have numerous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o

Its got silly music on it and the guy who put this together cut away but keep the audio going, but Im sure you remember this clip.

Here's another:

http://youtu.be/smreRx51cus

What do you hear? I hear a steady rising progressive rumble turn into a roar. This is not what any explosive demolition sounds like. The microphone also eventually distorts, however only right near the end of the clip. Richard Gage will claim that massively intense explosives in the core were set off that were so powerful they flung heavy steel outwards over 600 feet. No demolition anywhere is trying to be at all that powerful and note how loud they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28

If what Gage claims happened what would you hear on 911? Just how ridiculously loud it would be I do not know, but what we do know is that if they happened where Gage claims we would hear massive explosions and they would be far enough away that the mic would not distort and would have time to pick it up, or, they would be so powerful it would distort immediately. What we hear however is nothing like that, its a slow progressive rumble turning into a roar as it gets closer and the energy increases. This clearly shows its the sound of the collapse not of any explosives detonating, since we expect a collapsing building to get louder in this way, sounds of explosions would sound totally different.

Last edited by Edx; 25th July 2011 at 01:34 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:15 PM   #633
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
Clearly some of the facade landed there as you can see the grid of windows butting up to the building. Had this been an official CD there would be cause for alarm but this wasn't so a very small amount of damage relative to what could have been was perhaps inevitable.
If you look at those pictures you can clearly see the collapse radius is at least twice the size of its footprint not counting the side that hit filterman hall. Thats a whole two blocks at least of debris that fell outside its footprint.

Last edited by Edx; 25th July 2011 at 01:35 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:17 PM   #634
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
I can't prove the use of explosives but doesn't mean they weren't used.
No, what proves they weren't there is the utter and complete lack of any evidence. Physical evidence, anecdotal evidence, heresay, whatever.

None. Zero. Nada.

No evidence.

Quote:
I love it when truthers start denying things they've said.
Self-debunking. A classic truther faux-paux.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:18 PM   #635
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Still waiting for a responce on this.

Please tell me how you tell the difference between someone on 911 hearing and experiencing a bomb and someone that heard and experienced something else, like a transformer exploding or a backdraft.





Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
I've replied to Edx on this point already or didn't you bother to read what I said?
Didn't you bother to read my responce?

Explosions are common and expected, I've asked you several times now how do you tell the difference between someone hearing and experiencing a bomb or something else.

Quote:
There is no conclusive proof that explosives were used nor is there any to say they weren't. Just claiming that exploding sounds can mean any number of things adds nothing to this debate...
Yes it does, you claim that all evidence points to people hearing and experiencing explosives. So considering that plenty of things can cause explosions and people reporting explosions are fully expected in fires, what evidence do you have that says they specifically experienced explosives rather than something else? How many times do I have to ask you the same questions?



Quote:
although if you debunkers are allowed to say that an explosive is not necessarily a sound due to explosives because there are other real life examples where this is so
Not only are there plenty of things that can explode and I posted 3 examples on this page including 2 videos directly to you in my post you ignored but I also showed you a video with the sources that show only a few example of how its normal for people to use words like "explosion", "blast" and a phrase like "sounding like bombs" to not only describe things that weren't explosives but that they used those words to describe things they already knew weren't bombs when they said it.



Quote:
then I can say that the global collapse of WTC7 is not necessarily due to fire since the most common example of such collapses is with CDs.
You can say that, and you'd be stupid because you have to ignore all the aspects around WTC7s collapse. Now if you're saying I am ignoring something with these explosion witness', please do provide the evidence so that I can see how you are going about telling the difference between someone hearing a bomb vs something else like a transformer explosion or backdraft. Since blast injuries are common in every other bombing I'd also like to know how you rationalise no one sustaining any on 911 when all these bombs were going off all over the place.


Quote:
You can't have it all ways so the argument is circular and worth nothing.
The two arguments you gave don't relate to each other, but I hasten to add that you're defending Richard gage, someone who wants to be able to say huge explosions went off flinging steel and pulverizing concrete but no videos picked up such gigantic explosions.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:26 PM   #636
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
And to add to what I said in my last post, here's some more views of the Glentworth & Fullbeck House demolition with better cameras/microphones:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Collapse is at 04:31. Was that loud enough for you?

What about this one?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


You claimed... "Notice the lack of explosive sounds ".

Can you hear them now or are you still intentionally deaf? There's plenty more videos of this demolition on youtube in case you think the NWO faked this one just to spite you.



Originally Posted by mrkinnies View Post
What CDs are you referring to...all of them? How many types of CDs are there or are they all the same in your book.

The bulk of WTC7 fell as a complete unit, straight down into its own footprint. Here's an example from the UK. Notice the lack of explosive sounds and the buildings falling straight down with a slight twist which becomes more significant towards the end. Notice too the dust cloud. WTC7 displayed the same behaviour or are you going to argue against this also?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxCpS...eature=related

Last edited by Edx; 25th July 2011 at 01:30 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:32 PM   #637
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Can you hear them now or are you still intentionally deaf? There's plenty more videos of this demolition on youtube in case you think the NWO faked this one just to spite you.
He no doubt had trouble finding one that didn't have the telltale huge explosions.....
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:42 PM   #638
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
The two arguments you gave don't relate to each other, but I hasten to add that you're defending Richard gage, someone who wants to be able to say huge explosions went off flinging steel and pulverizing concrete but no videos picked up such gigantic explosions.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1F...layer_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk&NR=1
19 minutes 30 seconds in a tremendous explosion.

http://www.ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/...g/reopen_9_11/

Last edited by Clayton Moore; 25th July 2011 at 01:45 PM.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:44 PM   #639
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
funny little boy.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th July 2011, 01:57 PM   #640
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
uuh, yes thats the collapsing WTC. So? I dont hear any sound, wheres the huge steel flinging concrete pulverising explosives going off?

And what do you see when you look at those pictures? An explosive cant detonate silently, so please tell me why you think massive explosives were going off flinging steel around yet not picked up on video. The blast wave is what creates destruction, the blast wave is sound, so if you have no sound you have no blast wave and so no destruction, why do no truthers understand that?

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk&NR=1
19 minutes 30 seconds in a tremendous explosion.
uuuh, I don't hear it Clayton.... For some reaosn the video skips a few times when the collapse starts and thats why it jumps to the sound of the collapse, but there is no "tremendous explosion". Unless you gave me the wrong timestamp.

Quote:
Whats this website supposed to be showing me?

Last edited by Edx; 25th July 2011 at 02:01 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.