ISF Logo   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 wtc7 , demolition

Reply
Old 14th June 2008, 06:39 PM   #161
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?
Pretty good. Just don't be counting on him/her/it to address any facts that have been/ will be presented
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 06:39 PM   #162
Walter Ego
Illuminator
 
Walter Ego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dixie
Posts: 3,377
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?

Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.
Walter Ego is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 06:47 PM   #163
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.

No. He is usually able to just snark and run, but he got nailed bad on this thread. And after the embarrassment last nite where he insulted everyone in the military, I'd say things aren't looking good for ta.
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 06:50 PM   #164
Bobert
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by Walter Ego View Post
Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.
EXACTLY!
Bobert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 07:23 PM   #165
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
I think we're all agreed that he won't slither back here.

I'm just amazed that some people somehow get a kick from getting the snot kicked out of them like this.

I guess it beats paying good money to have Mistress Wanda spank you silly.

NTTAWWT
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 07:30 PM   #166
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
What are the odds we see ta on this thread ever again?
I think the chances of seeing ta again are pretty good
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 07:37 PM   #167
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by theauthor View Post
You got a link to these reports of 20,000 people killed?

Yawn. Here you are again--breathless, red in the face, hands waving frantically, and all because you've been caught for the thousandth time. Your deranged devotion to your evil cause is weirdly fascinating, but, really, you can be tiresome.
As everyone who on that terrible day sat transfixed in front of the TV, casualty guesses were all over the place and wildly pessimistic: 10,000, 20,000, 30,000--nobody had the slightest idea. Weeks after the attacks, the death toll was estimated 6,000.

Where are you going with this approach?
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 07:47 PM   #168
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by theauthor View Post
No, im saying you are lying.

You ridiculous fraud! A mindless troll who does nothing but tell lies is accusing a rationalist of lying for stating something that is completely true. Here is what 911Research.com, a site that caters to you evil morons, has to say:

"Estimates of the dead gradually declined in the years after the attack, eventually settling to a number around 2,750. On the day of the attack, news anchors speculated that the dead might number in the tens of thousands."
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 07:52 PM   #169
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton View Post
(1) and (2) Go to imlplosionworld.com > click "Cinema explosif". Explain to me why every controlled demolition is different from each other. Why are the sounds in those controlled demolitions different from the video you posted.
Um, different sizes, different positioning, different distance, different recording devices, different compiling method, different video delivery, etc.

There were lots of differences, but let me ask you: what did they all have in common?

Or better yet: how many of them (that had audio at all) were silent?

Quote:
(3) Does every explosion record a seismic data?
This question is so horribly written that I can't even guess at what you're trying to ask, and I don't want to give you a response in the traditional sense so much as I want to shove a middle school grammar and vocabulary textbook in your face. Try writing that again.
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo

Last edited by 1337m4n; 14th June 2008 at 08:02 PM.
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 08:10 PM   #170
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by theauthor View Post
No, im saying you are lying.
So you say that the witness who's testimony you use isn't lying, and that I AM lying.

So basically your evidence of an inside job is dictated by whatever opinion you make up. And you wonder why people laugh at you?

It must be just so exhausting walking around with that huge brain of yours....

Last edited by Jonnyclueless; 14th June 2008 at 08:13 PM.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 08:11 PM   #171
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
For a spawn of Henry VIII, you're a pretty good gal.

You can bet you post will be dismissed because I said 20,000, and your post says 50,000.

ta, I hereby retract my retraction and patiently await the answer to my question.
I prefer to think I got all my best qualities from Mom.

I remembered hearing the 50,000 estimate first, because that was how many people the newscasters said worked in the towers, and thinking that sounded like a lot of people for just two buildings, even buildings as large as WTC 1 and 2.
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 10:18 PM   #172
gc051360
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 272
A rescue worker being in on it?

Isn't that kind of like trying to drown someone, but then giving them CPR?

Seems counterintuitive.

And, yes. Absolutely. "Blow up" can mean nothing else, except in reference to controlled demolition charges. There is no way that he could mean anything else by that statement.

Why even try to give a serious answer to any of theauthor's claims? The guy is a clown.
gc051360 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 11:20 PM   #173
Mangoose
Muse
 
Mangoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 921
Originally Posted by theauthor
No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?
I have a video in my collection (only aired once on TV, AFAIK) that was shot by a woman in her apartment building of a crowd of people stampeding from the South Tower collapse, and then the dust cloud hitting her open window, glass breaking, and her scrambling out of her room and up the staircase to higher floors to find breathable air, yelling for people to keep their doors closed if they have good air. After going up one or two floors, another woman comes out of her apartment crying, "What's happening?" And the woman with the video camera said, "The World Trade Center's blown up."

She saw the building come down and her building was caught in the enveloping dust cloud. In that traumatic moment, she had no knowledge of how the building came down, whether by explosives or a collapse. But to her, it was blown up. The building was all over the place, in the air they breathed.

Last edited by Mangoose; 14th June 2008 at 11:22 PM.
Mangoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 11:44 PM   #174
OldTigerCub
Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid
 
OldTigerCub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Yawn. Here you are again--breathless, red in the face, hands waving frantically, and all because you've been caught for the thousandth time. Your deranged devotion to your evil cause is weirdly fascinating, but, really, you can be tiresome.
As everyone who on that terrible day sat transfixed in front of the TV, casualty guesses were all over the place and wildly pessimistic: 10,000, 20,000, 30,000--nobody had the slightest idea. Weeks after the attacks, the death toll was estimated 6,000.

Where are you going with this approach?
You make a very good point, Ron. With communications disrupted, air traffic shut down nationwide, New York City in a state of utter chaos...everyone was trying to find friends and relatives that might have been in the area. The estimated death toll came down slowly over the following days and weeks as communication was restored and many that were presumed missing were accounted for. It took time to figure out what the real damage was in terms of lives lost, and it was months before the identities of all of the dead were known for sure.
Edit: Bolding mine for emphasis
__________________
"Nuts!" - General Anthony C. McAuliffe

Last edited by OldTigerCub; 14th June 2008 at 11:55 PM.
OldTigerCub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2008, 11:47 PM   #175
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
The demolition professionals ruled out the posssibility of explosives when they failed to discover physical evidence--detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures, etc.

Of course, uneducated conspiracy liars know so much more than professionals in all relevant fields.
please provide reference, that demolition professionals were searching after chemical signatures etc.

Last edited by bio; 15th June 2008 at 12:12 AM.
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:02 AM   #176
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
.
perhabs Ryan wanted to say: "Nobody was able to find a bomb"
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:22 AM   #177
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Nor was there the first hint of a folow up of their first impression, The speculation of a van bomb is based on there being a blast and burn victims in the basement. That does not account for the burn victims on th lobby. Utter FAIL.

Have you ever seen an oxygen genrator? They would look like bombs to a non-bomb-trained technician. No reports of a confirmed bomb from the police. FAIL.
interesting - please provide better explanation in thread " Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby".

Looking forward to your contributions.

Last edited by bio; 15th June 2008 at 12:24 AM. Reason: orthographic mistake
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 06:54 AM   #178
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by theauthor View Post
Why did he say it was about to blow up?
Perhaps because he'd been in other fires where things "blew up." Perhaps he was merely using the term in a non-technical sense; someone else in the video says, "it's about to come down." Perhaps he knew quite a bit about the building and thought the fuel tanks were going to go.

But you're arguing that this fireman was told that the building was loaded with explosives? Curious. He had just watched as 300 of his brothers were killed in the collapse of the other towers, he's standing close enough to a CNN camera that they can overhear his conversation, and he calmly says, "it's about to blow up."

I believe that's called grasping at straws.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 07:19 AM   #179
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by theauthor View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

"We are walking back because the building is about to blow up"

How did he know building 7 was about to "blow up"?

He was referring to Stuyvesant High School. Firefighters and cops said their was a bomb in the school that morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Us6hwc5EY

Note in the video you posted we don't see the person who said, "this building is about it blow up", it's a voice over.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 07:40 AM   #180
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,237
What do you think someone means when they say they're going to "break a shotgun?"

What does a boss mean when he is going to "fire" someone?

Does a "boom box" or "ghetto blaster" contain explosives?

When a person has "a [rule 10]-eating grin" is that what they were just doing?

What do people mean when they are going to "blow up" a balloon or a picture?

I realize it would be clearer if the person had said that "the building was, based on [his] experience and the information given to him by higher ranking more experienced officials, going to collapse in accordance with the laws of physics and gravity, due to the structural damage and corresponding fires," but wouldn't that be just as suspicious?
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 08:02 AM   #181
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Mangoose View Post
I have a video in my collection (only aired once on TV, AFAIK) that was shot by a woman in her apartment building of a crowd of people stampeding from the South Tower collapse, and then the dust cloud hitting her open window, glass breaking, and her scrambling out of her room and up the staircase to higher floors to find breathable air, yelling for people to keep their doors closed if they have good air. After going up one or two floors, another woman comes out of her apartment crying, "What's happening?" And the woman with the video camera said, "The World Trade Center's blown up."

She saw the building come down and her building was caught in the enveloping dust cloud. In that traumatic moment, she had no knowledge of how the building came down, whether by explosives or a collapse. But to her, it was blown up. The building was all over the place, in the air they breathed.
I think the person saying that 7 World Trade was about to "blow up" was invoking the image of the towers collapsing in order to move people along. This video clip verifies that it was perfectly natural to describe the collapses of the towers as "blowing up." Thanks.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 08:03 AM   #182
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,490
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Hmmm. Seems that theauthor has chosen to ignore your post Myriad. I wonder why this is?

I believe it's for the same reason he chooses to ignore all my other posts. This drawing illustrates the general principle involved:

http://hometown.aol.com/masterslyceu.../worm-maze.jpg

Just think of the left branch as "attempt usual smart-ass rebuttal" and the right branch as "completely ignore Myriad's point." The rest of the analogy is self-evident, I think.

However, whether he addresses the point or not, the fact is that "blow up" is firefighting jargon for a particular type of event that very well might have threatened to happen at WTC7 at that time. It's also used metaphorically by firefighters and others (I've heard it used by economists, for example) to refer to a deteriorating situation presenting increasing danger.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 09:29 AM   #183
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
I think the last few posts of ta illustrates his mindset perfectly. His entire thinking of 9-11 revolves around conspiracy, he doesn't even recall the incredible chaos and confusion of those first hours and days and how nothing was certain. Out of that carnage he cherry picks sentence fragments from people in the process of being attacked as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy.
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 10:17 AM   #184
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
I think the last few posts of ta illustrates his mindset perfectly. His entire thinking of 9-11 revolves around conspiracy, he doesn't even recall the incredible chaos and confusion of those first hours and days and how nothing was certain. Out of that carnage he cherry picks sentence fragments from people in the process of being attacked as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy.
It's been seven years since 9-11, so it's quite possible TA was too young at the time to remember what it was like. If he's even fourteen or fifteen, that would make him seven or eight on 9/11/01, old enough to remember that the grown-ups were all upset, but not to really absorb the details.
Elizabeth I is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:20 PM   #185
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
It's been seven years since 9-11, so it's quite possible TA was too young at the time to remember what it was like. If he's even fourteen or fifteen, that would make him seven or eight on 9/11/01, old enough to remember that the grown-ups were all upset, but not to really absorb the details.

It has been a while, hasn't it? Although I should point out that he claims in an earlier post "i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed."

He is a unapologetic liar.
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:40 PM   #186
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,722
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
It has been a while, hasn't it? Although I should point out that he claims in an earlier post "i have watched all the coverage and NOBODY claims that at least 20,000 were killed."

He is a unapologetic liar.
Indeed. "All the coverage" would have to include every second of coverage from every network. So just picking the majors: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc...either TA had 7 tvs going prior to the first tower being hit, or he/she has the most complete recorded collection of news coverage of any single event in history.

I'm with you, Tom, I smell BS. I don't expect TA to be back to explain it.
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:45 PM   #187
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by nicepants View Post
Indeed. "All the coverage" would have to include every second of coverage from every network. So just picking the majors: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, as well as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc...either TA had 7 tvs going prior to the first tower being hit, or he/she has the most complete recorded collection of news coverage of any single event in history.

I'm with you, Tom, I smell BS. I don't expect TA to be back to explain it.
Let's not forget that some networks not normally broadcasting news (and I don't remember which ones) showed the BBC and SkyNews coverage.

For some reason I spent a lot of time watching their coverage.
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:45 PM   #188
theauthor
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 780
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
He was referring to Stuyvesant High School. Firefighters and cops said their was a bomb in the school that morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Us6hwc5EY

Note in the video you posted we don't see the person who said, "this building is about it blow up", it's a voice over.
The high school bomb thing was befor the towers came down. Have you got any proof?
theauthor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:50 PM   #189
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Now, Brad, why on earth would you trot out your silly, thoroughly debunked falsehoods again? AS YOU KNOW, Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex. AS YOU KNOW, there isn't a single firefighter who swallows the fantasies of your evil, brain-dead movement. AS YOU KNOW, Barry Jennings turned out to be a tad less than you liars hoped for.

Do you enjoy these beatings?
Brad said: "The seismic argument is debunked by the controlled demolition industry itself as they have the technology to CD a building without seismic registration."

How can you debunk him, when you say: "Protec had seismic devices in place throughout the WTC complex".

Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.

Am I evil, brain-dead, too? Perhabs you have more information, instead...
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 12:57 PM   #190
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.
Perhaps Implosionworld is in on the plot?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:01 PM   #191
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by theauthor View Post
The high school bomb thing was befor the towers came down. Have you got any proof?
Why bother?

You keep asking for proof, keep getting it, and then keep ignoring it.

Are you going to apologize to Jonnyclueless
for calling him a liar?

Are you going to admit you were wrong?
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:05 PM   #192
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,068
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Wheater there were devices or not is irrelevant, because the controlled demolition industry has the technology to CD a building without seismic registration.
I smell a new product.... CUSHABOOM™! It destroys your building, but gently lays the pieces on the ground with NO SEISMIC SIGNATURE! Great for sinister uses! Easily planted by only a few minions in a few hours' time!

CUSHABOOM™ is available at NWO Supply Central and online at eviloverlord.com.
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:12 PM   #193
Russ_Dalton
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by 1337m4n View Post
Um, different sizes, different positioning, different distance, different recording devices, different compiling method, different video delivery, etc.

There were lots of differences, but let me ask you: what did they all have in common?

Or better yet: how many of them (that had audio at all) were silent?



This question is so horribly written that I can't even guess at what you're trying to ask, and I don't want to give you a response in the traditional sense so much as I want to shove a middle school grammar and vocabulary textbook in your face. Try writing that again.
(1) Do you notice a difference in location of explosives ? Do you see differences in flashes? Do you notice a difference in sounds ?

(2) What was your point on seismic recordings you made earlier?
Russ_Dalton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:19 PM   #194
Russ_Dalton
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
Gee, maybe I made it up. Or maybe you're another lazy kid who is new to this conspiracy crap and hasn't read a goddamned thing.

Start with Brent Blanchard's Protec paper and the various sources linked to by Mark Roberts.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction"]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?
Russ_Dalton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:23 PM   #195
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,068
Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton View Post
So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?
Wrong. Every demolition expert in the world EXCEPT ONE says WTC7 was not a CD. And the one who DID say it was a CD was misled by Twoofers and will not now discuss the matter at all.
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:25 PM   #196
Russ_Dalton
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Tomblvd View Post
As I've been saying, there are also many statements from that day that over 20,000 people died.

Where are the bodies?
So whats the criteria for trusting an eyewitness?
Russ_Dalton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:28 PM   #197
Russ_Dalton
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
Wrong. Every demolition expert in the world EXCEPT ONE says WTC7 was not a CD. And the one who DID say it was a CD was misled by Twoofers and will not now discuss the matter at all.
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I know, I know, he's one of the NWO black ops sent out to mislead and deceive the sheeple.

Read it anyway. Just give it a try. You never know.
So a CD "expert" can be misled?
Shouldn't all CD experts agree on one opinion?
Russ_Dalton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:31 PM   #198
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,665
Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton View Post
So there are 2 controlled demolition experts. One says WTC7 is a CD and other says its not.
Why would I want to believe one over another?
Shouldn't they all agree on one opinion?
Because according to you guy's the one that thinks it is was is only right 1/3 of the time.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:32 PM   #199
Tomblvd
Muse
 
Tomblvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by Russ_Dalton View Post
So whats the criteria for trusting an eyewitness?

Corroborating evidence.
Tomblvd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2008, 01:35 PM   #200
Russ_Dalton
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
No, there are not. The only eyewitness that talks about bombs and explosives is Mr. William Rodriguez, and his account, if true, would refer to the period before impact, and have no bearing at all on the collapses.

All of the other accounts, if you read them carefully, accurately, and in context, do not describe bombs or explosives at all. As another poster noted, the concept of "simile" is essential here, but evidently lacking in your analysis.

I have also explained to you personally how to differentiate the sounds. Stop asking the same question over and over again.
Incorrect.
Copy paste the link below to see a fireman say bomb in the building (I cannot add URLs yet)
youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

or google.video.com - "Fireman: Bomb In The Building"
Russ_Dalton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 12:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.