Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Options
1…457910…15

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Ramocc
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not what they say in the report. You are lying.
    And this is on top of the lies you are saying about what I've said.
    Your point is so untenable and contradictory you have to resort to total distortion and misrepresentation of the facts to try and give it some credibility.

    What the report actually says is that it considered the scenario of a single 4kg explosive on one column which causes it to fail.
    Now this is the same reason that they claim the building fell, just that the column was weakened and failed due to fire. CTers like yourself have gone blue in the face telling us this is impossible.

    So if we are to take you little lie at face value, then you'd have to admit that the real scenario (failure due to fire) is possible.

    However if we read on from that one statement you misrepresented and lied about we find that the NIST believed that planting this bomb was the only feasible scenario as all the others required far more explosives.
    But even this one was determined to be impossible to do without detection as it required them to remove walls and cut at the column with blowtorches.

    And on top of that none of the simulations were able to match the window breakage patterns seen. And then it was determined that even this tiny tiny explosive of 4kg would have produced a sound of about 130dB to 140dB at 1km. Which according to the report you didn't read is about 10 times as loud as standing in front of speakers at a Metallica concert.

    So with all that, they conclude that explosives could not have brought down WTC7.

    But that's not convenient for your world view, so you lied.


    Just joining in here after reading this crap for so long. It seemed like you'd gone away for a while, after talking about THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives. And yet you're back, misreading posts and replying with nonsense. davoxx clearly stated that the NIST considered that 4kg of explosives was enough to cause the collapse as it happened.

    (1) How is that a lie?

    (2) When was it ever said in this thread that the failure due to fire scenario was impossible?

    (3) And THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives was a fact? Why haven't you responded about that? Because it doesn't suit the one true (A.K.A. your) world view?

    As you can see, I've numbered the questions for you, please try to answer them this time.

    P.S. I personally don't really subscribe to any theory so don't try to attack me by generalising me to yet another CTist as seems to be your style.


  • Options
    #183
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    I think you lost it somewhere .... when i ask a genuine question about the 1500 architects and engineers you come up with some mass murdering doctor

    Fine by me If you don't have an idea in a discussion then say so ... Instead of coming up with those ridicules statements ... maybe you should try to find out why there is so much opposition from respectable people against the official investigation ...

    I'll try again. I don't know these people so there is no way on earth I (or you) can tell what their motivations are. What I can tell is what they say has many flaws with it. Flaws which in the video that was posted no one mentions at all, they just all back slap one another.


  • Options
    #184
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    For a change of pace, I will use a story to show you why this is poor evidence. The other night I was in bed I heard a bang, initially I thought it was a gun shot, if someone had of asked me then, that is what I would say (I have been around many gunshots), then when I thought about it I thought it was porbably just someone slaming a gate or something falling over in the wind. When I got up I found it was a car that had been set on fire up the road and the "explosion" was stuff in the bag going off. There were 3 totally different things the noise could have been, eye witness testimony at the scene of a disaster is shakey to say the least. It is not hard evidence, the explosions they allegedly heard could have been anything.

    i like stories like this one where the obvious cause ... the gun shot ... was not the correct answer.
    even though you heard a gun shot, further investigation proved it to be wrong.

    but thanks for the story, not sure how this relates to proving any of you points, but stories are good!!!

    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Aliens and laser based weapon exist in theory too, the latter in fact, so no it wasn't a bad analogy and that wasn't the point. The point was there are several theories, not just your own, they could not test for everything (cheese, unicorn's etc). As stated before, if they had of tested for explosives and found nothing, you would complain it was fake report or say it was aliens/lasers ......
    they exist in theory but not in fact? what is your point with this, you know what ... don't bother, i don't want to hear about aliens with laser flying planes into pakistan to kill obama ...

    YOU have NO IDEA what i would have said had they tested for explosives, so be quiet.

    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Right I will put my hand up and say I didn't read the whole report, see I can admit I can be wrong/make a mistake, wish you could. But preliminary google searches for page 26 and 4 kg, have shown nothing but "he estimated fuel load of 2.8 X 10^4 kg carried by the plane", is this the 4 kg you are refering to??? Please put up a link if you have one, I am very interested in this (not meaning sarcastically, I actual have an interest in this)

    so at least you've finally realised you were wrong.
    you know which building we are talking about? clue not the one a plane flew into.

    ====================================================================================================================
    Di0genes wrote: »
    I'm sorry for someone beligerantly demanding everyone read posts, and mocking peoples reading comprehension skills, this has got to be one of the most flat out silly comments I've read about 911.

    Stundied.

    you are 100% right, i should never have expected you to read, let alone post coherent arguments.

    i don't mind if i'm Stundied, i'm not posting this for peer praise. if people can show why i'm wrong, that's fine. but since you can't you want to misquote me on http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7587893&postcount=166

    don't worry - i'll make a few post explaining your silly points ...


    ====================================================================================================================

    meglome wrote: »
    Well I was wondering how you don't get basic logic so maybe you were young. You do realise just because you think something should have happened doesn't make it logical?

    maybe that is your problem, once you hear something you can't accept anything else ... young people have not heard it before so they think for themselves?

    seriously age is a great way to argue your point ... maybe you could bring hair colour into it ...


    ====================================================================================================================

    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not what they say in the report. You are lying.
    are you seriously calling me a liar?? mister thousands of tons of explosives needed to take down a building???

    seriously ... you were caught out.

    imagine if they let you near explosives ... you'd blow the planet up ...

    (and i would not call another member a liar unless i had proof, which you don't so like i said before put up or shut up)

    ====================================================================================================================
    King Mob wrote: »
    Some one here made the point that 1500 engineers (assuming that they all are real and have verified credentials, which isn't the case) account for less than 0.1% of all engineers in the US.

    For comparison that's only about twice as many scientists who buy creationism (~0.05%).
    I wouldn't call that much opposition.

    is that relevant .. so we follow the majority is right? like how people like you would have believed the world is flat because everyone else said so.

    look i now understand why you are incapable of understanding basic concept, and believe that wishful thinking (what you refer to as logic) is 'evidence'.


    ====================================================================================================================

    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Figured as much. Typical, can't find facts that fit your world view, lie or distort, abrakedabra, you have a CT. I now remember why I stopped reading this forum, I lost faith in humanity.
    because you can't argue?
    because you have no idea what anything means?
    because you can only find facts that fit your world view and you can't understand how people are able to prove you wrong??

    they'd be good reasons.

    ====================================================================================================================


  • Options
    #185
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ramocc wrote: »
    Just joining in here after reading this crap for so long. It seemed like you'd gone away for a while, after talking about THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives. And yet you're back, misreading posts and replying with nonsense. davoxx clearly stated that the NIST considered that 4kg of explosives was enough to cause the collapse as it happened.

    (1) How is that a lie?
    Because that's not what Davoxx had claimed.
    He said:
    In fact, the NIST ran simulations for the demolition of the building using explosives. In one scenario, they calculated it required 4kg of explosives. The only reason they dismissed this idea is that they found no evidence of the sound that would have resulted.
    The NIST never said anything about it collapsing or demolishing the building, just causing one column to fail.
    And their only reason for dismissing it was not just because there was "no evidence of the sound that would have resulted".
    I've detailed all of this.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    (2) When was it ever said in this thread that the failure due to fire scenario was impossible?
    Where did I say it was?
    It's certainly claimed several times in the other threads about WTC7.
    If someone believes that the NIST's "admission" that it would only take 4 kg of explosives, then they would have to also agree with the scenario they provide which is exactly the same as the one they use that is caused by fire.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    (3) And THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives was a fact? Why haven't you responded about that? Because it doesn't suit the one true (A.K.A. your) world view?
    If I hadn't responded to that, it's because it was lost in the rantings and immature posts by Davoxx.

    I'm getting this figure from a guess based on what the conspiracy theorists claim.
    The usually claim is that the buildings all fell at free fall meaning all supports must have been destroyed at once. This means that each individual column in each of the buildings would have to have bombs attached. so that's at least 79 in WTC7. And that's just one floor....

    But if conspiracy theorists think they just needed 4 kg then there's a lot of their claims that don't make sense.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    P.S. I personally don't really subscribe to any theory so don't try to attack me by generalising me to yet another CTist as seems to be your style.
    Love the irony of how you veil an attack on me by asking me not to attack you.


  • Options
    #186
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    are you seriously calling me a liar?? mister thousands of tons of explosives needed to take down a building???

    seriously ... you were caught out.

    imagine if they let you near explosives ... you'd blow the planet up ...

    (and i would not call another member a liar unless i had proof, which you don't so like i said before put up or shut up)
    I did in that post you quoted. You didn't read or understand it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    If someone believes that the NIST's "admission" that it would only take 4 kg of explosives, then they would have to also agree with the scenario they provide which is exactly the same as the one they use that is caused by fire.

    no it takes thousands of tons of explosives, maybe even several nukes just to demolish a building.

    (that useful fact was brought to you by King Mob, backed up with <space>)


  • Options
    #188
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    no it takes thousands of tons of explosives, maybe even several nukes just to demolish a building.

    (that useful fact was brought to you by King Mob, backed up with <space>)

    So any chance you'll grow up and actually address that point? Cause it might change your mind.


  • Options
    #189
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    I did in that post you quoted. You didn't read or understand it.

    fine .. i wanted to be sure that you actually thought about it when calling me a liar ...

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469664&postcount=178

    so mister where is your proof that the video is fake or are you LYING?


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469664&postcount=178

    what did it say on page 26?? what did i say? quotes please.
    show me this lie or shut up.


  • Options
    #190
    Ramocc
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because that's not what Davoxx had claimed.
    He said:

    The NIST never said anything about it collapsing or demolishing the building, just causing one column to fail.
    And their only reason for dismissing it was not just because there was "no evidence of the sound that would have resulted".
    I've detailed all of this.

    Firstly, you've taken the claim out of context (since it was about the quantity of explosives required). I would've thought it was obvious that the argument is about how much explosive would have been required for the collapse as it occurred. In that case 4kg was considered sufficient.
    Where did I say it was?
    It's certainly claimed several times in the other threads about WTC7.
    If someone believes that the NIST's "admission" that it would only take 4 kg of explosives, then they would have to also agree with the scenario they provide which is exactly the same as the one they use that is caused by fire.
    Where I did I say that you said that it was?

    And no, they can argue that the fire alone wasn't sufficient to cause the collapse and that explosives were required. Get it?
    If I hadn't responded to that, it's because it was lost in the rantings and immature posts by Davoxx.

    I'm getting this figure from a guess based on what the conspiracy theorists claim.
    The usually claim is that the buildings all fell at free fall meaning all supports must have been destroyed at once. This means that each individual column in each of the buildings would have to have bombs attached. so that's at least 79 in WTC7. And that's just one floor....

    But if conspiracy theorists think they just needed 4 kg then there's a lot of their claims that don't make sense.
    You gave an absurd estimate, and rather than admitting that YOU WERE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG, you blame CTists? Surely they would be the last people you would quote.

    Why are you talking about "the usual claim"? Can't argue without generalisation? I can generalise too ... no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, therefore all claims from US administrations are lies. Can you see the flaw in this argument? Now apply it to yours.
    Love the irony of how you veil an attack on me by asking me not to attack you.
    I never asked you not to attack me, I asked you not to attack me by generalising me to a CTist. Feel free to attack me with logical arguments, I'd welcome the change.


  • Options
    #191
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    I'll try again. I don't know these people so there is no way on earth I (or you) can tell what their motivations are. What I can tell is what they say has many flaws with it. Flaws which in the video that was posted no one mentions at all, they just all back slap one another.

    Yes of course ... Now i understand the mass murderer vs 1500 engineers comparison


    The only flaw here is you believing that politically motivated report without even questioning the blatant flaws in it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ramocc wrote: »
    Firstly, you've taken the claim out of context (since it was about the quantity of explosives required). I would've thought it was obvious that the argument is about how much explosive would have been required for the collapse as it occurred. In that case 4kg was considered sufficient.
    And you're ignoring the facts he claimed things that are factually incorrect about the report.
    He claimed that the only reason they rejected that scenario is not true is because of the sound.
    This is false.

    If you're incapable or unwilling to see even this, there's not point trying to show you why the rest is just as dishonest.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    Where I did I say that you said that it was?

    And no, they can argue that the fire alone wasn't sufficient to cause the collapse and that explosives were required. Get it?
    And again if you read the other threads you'd see why this is a silly argument.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    You gave an absurd estimate, and rather than admitting that YOU WERE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG, you blame CTists? Surely they would be the last people you would quote.
    It is an absurd estimate because the claims of conspiracy theorists are absurd. I'm basing the estimate on their claims because they are the ones who are proposing the alternative theory. It's absurd because they make claims like "all the supports gave out at once and the building didnt encounter resistance."

    Now I see little point is discussing anything with you if you think this one point I made negates all of my other ones while you totally ignore the nonsense and immaturity coming from the conspiracy theorist side.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    Why are you talking about "the usual claim"? Can't argue without generalisation? I can generalise too ... no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, therefore all claims from US administrations are lies. Can you see the flaw in this argument? Now apply it to yours.
    Ah right then I'll just use the theories put forward by Davoxx.
    Oh no, wait I can't, because when I ask him any clarifying questions he throws his toys out of the pram...

    So yea, you're not bringing up any relevant points or discussion and it looks like you just want to take a swipe at me.
    I've no interest in that.
    But if you'd like to actually raise a topic relevant to the thread, I'd gladly discuss it.


  • Options
    #193
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    So any chance you'll grow up and actually address that point? Cause it might change your mind.

    what that 14,000 tons levelled hirosima yet they need thousands of tons to demolish a single building ....

    you want me to go again and provide proof when you can't be arsed to ...

    yeah good reply ... maybe if space lasers were used .....


  • Options
    #194
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    fine .. i wanted to be sure that you actually thought about it when calling me a liar ...

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469664&postcount=178

    so mister where is your proof that the video is fake or are you LYING?


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74469664&postcount=178

    what did it say on page 26?? what did i say? quotes please.
    show me this lie or shut up.
    I've already responded to these. You haven't read what I posted.
    That's simply not my problem.


  • Options
    #195
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    I've already responded to these. You haven't read what I posted.
    That's simply not my problem.

    what was that? not going to quote it? you can't? because you keep lying? fair point.

    called you out, and you made an excuse ... that's fine.

    i'll sure the space lasers with your thousands of tons of explosives will help back up your lies.


  • Options
    #196
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    And you're ignoring the facts he claimed things that are factually incorrect about the report.
    He claimed that the only reason they rejected that scenario is not true is because of the sound.
    This is false.

    do you mean me king mob? i never said it was factually incorrect.
    proof please ... what am i saying .. you'll just post some crap about tons of nukes to support your lie ....

    why must you lie? why oh why?


  • Options
    #197
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    What the report actually says is that it considered the scenario of a single 4kg explosive on one column which causes it to fail.
    so 4kg caused it to fall, not thousands of tons like you said.

    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not convenient for your world view, so you lied.
    i did not lie, 4kg of explosives.
    you lied, thousands of tons of explosives.

    FACT


  • Options
    #198
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    what was that? not going to quote it? you can't? because you keep lying? fair point.

    called you out, and you made an excuse ... that's fine.

    i'll sure the space lasers with your thousands of tons of explosives will help back up your lies.

    Actually davoxxx you made the claim the NIST said that only 4kg of explosives would be necessary.

    Please link to the NIST report, supply the exact quote.

    Stop demanding other people put up and shut up, when you're incapable o doing the same.

    Incidently, the largest ever controlled demolition in the USA, was the Hudson building that took
    CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

    See what I did there davoxx I provided a link to support my claim.

    Kindly do the same for your 4kg claim.


  • Options
    #199
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Actually davoxxx you made the claim the NIST said that only 4kg of explosives would be necessary.

    Please link to the NIST report, supply the exact quote.

    Stop demanding other people put up and shut up, when you're incapable o doing the same.

    Incidently, the largest ever controlled demolition in the USA, was the Hudson building that took



    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

    See what I did there davoxx I provided a link to support my claim.

    Kindly do the same for your 4kg claim.

    here you are you cheeky liar defender you :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74471310&postcount=197


  • Options
    #200
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Actually davoxxx you made the claim the NIST said that only 4kg of explosives would be necessary.

    Please link to the NIST report, supply the exact quote.

    Stop demanding other people put up and shut up, when you're incapable o doing the same.

    Incidently, the largest ever controlled demolition in the USA, was the Hudson building that took



    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

    See what I did there davoxx I provided a link to support my claim.

    Kindly do the same for your 4kg claim.

    Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of
    Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios
    would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

    now will you shut up?
    seriously read it then close your boards account and never post again, you cheeky defender liar you :)


    2,728 lb of explosives
    mhh let me get a calculator ..

    2728 pounds = 1.36400 short tons

    yup not even 2 tons ... yes that is EXACTLY the same as thousands of tons.

    thanks for your proof ...


  • Options
    #201
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes of course ... Now i understand the mass murderer vs 1500 engineers comparison

    No that's not what I said. I said we don't know what peoples motivations are, especially when we don't know them. You asked why these qualified people would lie, I'm trying to explain to you their qualifications are irrelevant to what their motivations are. Though you obviously don't seem to see the irony in wondering why one set of 'qualified' people would possibly lie but have no issue whatsoever believing another set of qualified people would lie (and cover up the mass murder of their own people).
    weisses wrote: »
    The only flaw here is you believing that politically motivated report without even questioning the blatant flaws in it

    I keep saying this but I don't have the skill set to show the NIST reports are completely accurate. What I have been doing is checking what evidence there is for the different claims put forward by the CT's. At each and every turn there are glaring problems with these CT's, problems that they usually address by saying 'sure everyone was in on it'. You keep saying the NIST report is bull but I can't for the life of me figure out what your evidence is. Well other than they didn't do what you think they should have done, and because they were hired by the US government you believe they must be all it on it i.e. stuff you have no evidence for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    are you actually King Mob, Di0genes?

    i though King Mob was the guy pushing the tons of explosives, but here you are providing proof for him while demanding from me ...


  • Options
    #203
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    i did, but YOU claim i was a liar ...

    I made no such claim. Please retract it.
    so burden of proof is now on you liar ... but that is okay, you can't understand that.

    You really have me confused with King Mob.

    2,728 lb of explosives
    mhh let me get a calculator ..

    2728 pounds = 1.36400 short tons

    yup not even 2 tons ... yes that is EXACTLY the same as thousands of tons.

    thanks for your proof ...

    The Hudson building is significantly smaller than either WTC 1 or 2.
    Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of
    Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios
    would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

    Thats one single column not the entire building as you claimed in post 168
    davoxx wrote:
    In fact, the NIST ran simulations for the demolition of the building using explosives. In one scenario, they calculated it required 4kg of explosives. The only reason they dismissed this idea is that they found no evidence of the sound that would have resulted.


  • Options
    #204
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Actually davoxxx you made the claim the NIST said that only 4kg of explosives would be necessary.

    Please link to the NIST report, supply the exact quote.

    Stop demanding other people put up and shut up, when you're incapable o doing the same.

    i did, but YOUR liar friend claimed i was a liar ... so burden of proof is now on him, the liar ... but that is okay, you can't understand that.

    you could have asked me to quote it as we know you can't be bothered to read reports.

    so where is PROOF that i'm a liar? none?


  • Options
    #205
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I made no such claim. Please retract it.

    i did ... you should edit your post to reflect that.


  • Options
    #206
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I made no such claim. Please retract it.



    You really have me confused with King Mob.

    i sure did, you claimed his argument was yours ... so i got confused, but i did fix it, but you managed to quote it before it was fixed.

    Di0genes wrote: »

    The Hudson building is significantly smaller than either WTC 1 or 2.



    Thats one single column not the entire building as you claimed in post 168


    how much smaller?1000 times?

    also knocking that single column would cause the entire building to fall, which is what they were testing.

    the entire building did not fall in one go.

    are you getting confused?

    maybe you should apply yourself for http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=218142&page=5


  • Options
    #207
    Ramocc
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    King Mob wrote: »
    And you're ignoring the facts he claimed things that are factually incorrect about the report.
    He claimed that the only reason they rejected that scenario is not true is because of the sound.
    This is false.

    I've read the report, I'll accept that other reasons were mentioned. It would appear that the only other reason given is the breakage pattern of the windows. Perhaps this should be used as an argument and it can be discussed constructively.

    However, like I said, the post you quoted was in reply to the amount of explosive required. davoxx's reply was in response to:
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Tell me this is a joke? Please show me where this was stated? 4kg's of anti matter maybe. You would be doing well to blow up a house with 4kg of any convential explosive.

    Even you have to admit that the NIST quote does well to rebut this statement.
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you're incapable or unwilling to see even this, there's not point trying to show you why the rest is just as dishonest.

    And again if you read the other threads you'd see why this is a silly argument.
    ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    It is an absurd estimate because the claims of conspiracy theorists are absurd. I'm basing the estimate on their claims because they are the ones who are proposing the alternative theory. It's absurd because they make claims like "all the supports gave out at once and the building didnt encounter resistance."

    Then you should use that argument against "them", not here. If you know it is absurd, why are you using it in your argument? This isn't about claims made by other people, I've already demonstrated how ridiculous generalisations does not constitute a valid argument.

    The CORRECT way to argue here would be to consider the ACTUAL amount of explosives required. I hope that helps.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Now I see little point is discussing anything with you if you think this one point I made negates all of my other ones while you totally ignore the nonsense and immaturity coming from the conspiracy theorist side.
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    Explosives and space lasers are not the same. Using explosives to demolish a building is common practice. On the other hand, there have been no recorded incidents of space lasers demolishing a building. It is completely feasible for a group of people to move the amount of explosives required to demolish a building (or even just cause the explosions depicted in the video). On the other hand, an extremely large amount of energy would be required for a space laser to demolish a building, technology which does not exist yet.

    And all those arguments you just used against the space laser theory can be used against your prefered one.
    There's no recorded incidents of terrorists sneaking thousands of tons of explosives into a skyscraper, or smashing planes into them either.
    Thousands of tons of explosive would be required to demolish a building.
    And if you believe the thermite theory, also relies on technology that doesn't exist yet.

    davoxx made several valid points about why the nuclear bomb/space laser theories are quite different to the explosives theory, none of which you have addressed.

    You DELIBERATELY stated the thousands of tons of explosives in order to liken the explosives theory to the space laser/nuclear bomb theory. You then drew conclusions based on that. Since the thousands of tons of explosives claim was clearly wrong, so are any arguments based on it. Note, the conclusions may still be true, or not, but your arguments leading to them are invalid. That is an example of a logical argument. Take notes.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah right then I'll just use the theories put forward by Davoxx.
    Oh no, wait I can't, because when I ask him any clarifying questions he throws his toys out of the pram...

    I think it's quite clear. He's talking the presence of explosives, but just not the ridiculous thousands of tons of it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So yea, you're not bringing up any relevant points or discussion and it looks like you just want to take a swipe at me.
    I've no interest in that.

    But you'll swipe away at davoxx? While bringing space lasers and nuclear bombs into a topic about explosives?
    King Mob wrote: »
    But if you'd like to actually raise a topic relevant to the thread, I'd gladly discuss it.

    I think encouraging proper debate is quite relevant to the thread. If you start making decent arguments, and finally admit YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVES, then I'll join in. Otherwise, I'm done here.


  • Options
    #208
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Thats one single column not the entire building as you claimed in post 168
    so according to you, it takes thousands of tons of explosive while one plane no even weighing thousand of tons, was able to take the building down without even crashing into it.

    yeah i make bad arguments ...

    also

    are you annoyed because of your rubbish posts in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424461&postcount=112 ???

    i only say as your first post n this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74468602&postcount=174 was a swipe at me

    maybe your buddies need your superior argumentative skills ... but fair play in just jumping in there ...


  • Options
    #209
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Ramocc wrote: »
    The CORRECT way to argue here would be to consider the ACTUAL amount of explosives required. I hope that helps.

    Well not quite. No matter how you look at it there would need to be a lot of explosives, several tons at least for 3 massive buildings it's fair to say and quite probably an awful lot more. But the amount is mostly irrelevant... you have to overcome how they planted them without being seen by anyone, you have to overcome how there were no sounds of the explosions, how there was no damage from the explosives, how no detcord was found etc etc etc. We can't get past step one so you'll forgive me for personally not being too fussed by the exact amount.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    davoxx made several valid points about why the nuclear bomb/space laser theories are quite different to the explosives theory, none of which you have addressed.

    The only good point he made was that explosives are common in controlled demolition. However since he cannot (or at least hasn't yet) show how the WTC collapses are like a controlled demolition, other than the buildings came down, that's not really relevant. No pre-prep, no sounds, no evidence whatsoever.

    The point we were making is they don't test for things that there is no evidence for, like space lasers, like nuclear blasts, like explosives. And seriously if anyone thinks the CT's would believe a negative explosive residue test they might as well believe in the tooth fairy. After all isn't everyone in on it.


  • Options
    #210
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ramocc wrote: »
    I've read the report, I'll accept that other reasons were mentioned. It would appear that the only other reason given is the breakage pattern of the windows. Perhaps this should be used as an argument and it can be discussed constructively.
    Davoxx said it was the only reason. You see it is not.
    And now even your are wrong because the Windows aren't the only other reason.

    And since you can't even see or admit that he claimed something that was factually wrong, how can I honestly convince you that the rest of his claim is a lie?
    Ramocc wrote: »
    davoxx made several valid points about why the nuclear bomb/space laser theories are quite different to the explosives theory, none of which you have addressed.
    Really? Must have missed they in the incoherent rambling.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    You DELIBERATELY stated the thousands of tons of explosives in order to liken the explosives theory to the space laser/nuclear bomb theory. You then drew conclusions based on that. Since the thousands of tons of explosives claim was clearly wrong, so are any arguments based on it. Note, the conclusions may still be true, or not, but your arguments leading to them are invalid. That is an example of a logical argument. Take notes.
    And then he DELIBERATELY stated the thousands of joules of energy a space laser would need and drew conclusions based on that.
    But this isn't so as they would just need a small accurate beam to take out one column.

    Any argument he's used against the "silly" explanations can be turned around and used against his explanation.

    And still this ignores the central point of my argument: there is no evidence to suggest that space lasers/explosives/nuclear devices were used and such an explanation is full of holes and patently silly, therefore there was no need to test for these things.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    I think encouraging proper debate is quite relevant to the thread. If you start making decent arguments, and finally admit YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVES, then I'll join in. Otherwise, I'm done here.
    So your definition of debate involves the other side admitting they were wrong before you'll address their points...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    thanks ramocc, finally people are not arguing crap
    meglome wrote: »
    The only good point he made was that explosives are common in controlled demolition. However since he cannot (or at least hasn't yet) show how the WTC collapses are like a controlled demolition, other than the buildings came down, that's not really relevant. No pre-prep, no sounds, no evidence whatsoever.
    i never said they were like controlled demolition.
    you fail to see the relevance.
    explosives are used to take down buildings (controlled or otherwise).
    therefore this should have been investigated.


Advertisement