WTC2 photo series shows upward explosive forces

reply to post by Pilgrum

What do you see on the right hand side of the second photo of the op? That massive section of perimeter has clearly been launched on an upward trajectory and it is sailing off to the east/right above the collapse wave.

I do remember your bathtub theory, it is one of the most plausible "natural" scenarios, but how would it account for this? And also for the high-arcing parabolic streamers at left?

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

What do you see on the right hand side of the second photo of the op? That massive section of perimeter has clearly been launched on an upward trajectory and it is sailing off to the east/right above the collapse wave.

While I believe something is fishy about 9/11, it is disinfo to claim that pieces were launched upwards. The explosive force needed for this alone would have been noticeable to all and undeniable.

The exterior columns fell outwards, not up, trailing the dust from the disintegrating concrete, wallboard, ceiling tiles, etc. As the main part of the building fell, it created a vortex behind it that pulled the dust closest to the building's original dimensions. And so when you take a screen grab of a video at this specific time, it creates the illusion that the dust streamer arcs up and out. This is false. The dust streamer went out only, then the part closest to the building got "sucked" down, creating the situation whereby people can lie about what is there.

Now, if you did a motion analysis, frame by frame of that video, and could track the in-question pieces arcing up and out..... that would be something worth investigating.

I am really surprised to see this claim of "upward trajectory" to be revived. It was one of the first claims to be debunked early in 2002, six years ago.

Back then, there were several websites devoted entirely to claiming that there was an upward, explosive trajectory of debris, "proving" that explosives had to have been used to destroy the twin towers. Lots and lots of photos were used to support this claim.

It was "obvious" by just looking at the photos that there was an "upward and outward arc: of debris coming from the "top" of the towers as they fell. They all used the photo posted here earlier of a detonation in the desert to show the "obvious" comparison.

It was easily debunked by showing the videos of the collapses.

The photos - every one of them - fail to show the one crucial fact of the collapses: the collapse fronts of the collapsing towers were obviously moving downward. The photos fail to show the motion of the collapses and the motion of the dust.

Why is that crucial? Because as the outer walls of each tower peeled away and were thrust outward, they fell downward and accelerated by the force of gravity. That is 1/2 of the profile of the arc. But there was also the dust and debris generated by the collapse front that was being sucked in behind the collapse front in the tremendous downblast generated by the collapse. This was simply the air being sucked in behind the collapse front and well documented as hitting the ground at well over 120 mph and blowing people and cars on the ground to great distances.

Photos ONLY capture an instant in time. Just looking at them makes it look like debris was shooting upward and outward. But we all know that could only be true if the tops of the falling towers were stationary platforms from which explosions emanated. But we all know they were collapsing rapidly.

There are many good videos showing the collapses. Study them carefully to understand what was actually happening.

^But why are the pieces of facade trailing 'dust' anyway. How do you explain that? What is that 'dust' and where did it come from?

How do you explain the 'peeling away' of the facade?

If the collapse is supposed to be from steel in the central core failing due to heat, why are the outer columns not also hot enough to fail? Steel doesn't snap when it's hot, it bends, twists sags etc...you wouldn't get pieces snapping off if they were hot and soft. Steel doesn't stay solid until it reaches a certain temp and then suddenly fail, it fails slowly as it is heated and bends or twists or sags.

And how do you explain the lack of resistance? I think it's pretty fair to say that no steel in the first say 70 floors, being conservative, were subjected to any heat at all. Other than what was being wicked away from the fires along the length of the steel. Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to heat to the point of failure is a known fact, ignore it if you wish but it ain't going away. So before you can hypothesis what caused the expulsions of steel you have to explain the other points first. Without a good explanation for the lack of resistance etc. all your other arguments are irrelevant and simply unprovable. You can't explain these anomalies and stay within the official story...

But it is very easy to explain all these anomalies if you except that there was another more powerful energy acting on those building than gravity.

Is that an example of Occam's razor? As I said, if you except the truth of 'controlled demo' then no assumptions are needed to explain the collapses, whereas the official story is based on assumptions...

Originally posted by ANOK
^But why are the pieces of facade trailing 'dust' anyway. How do you explain that? What is that 'dust' and where did it come from?

How do you explain the 'peeling away' of the facade?

If the collapse is supposed to be from steel in the central core failing due to heat, why are the outer columns not also hot enough to fail? Steel doesn't snap when it's hot, it bends, twists sags etc...you wouldn't get pieces snapping off if they were hot and soft. Steel doesn't stay solid until it reaches a certain temp and then suddenly fail, it fails slowly as it is heated and bends or twists or sags.

And how do you explain the lack of resistance? I think it's pretty fair to say that no steel in the first say 70 floors, being conservative, were subjected to any heat at all. Other than what was being wicked away from the fires along the length of the steel. Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to heat to the point of failure is a known fact, ignore it if you wish but it ain't going away. So before you can hypothesis what caused the expulsions of steel you have to explain the other points first. Without a good explanation for the lack of resistance etc. all your other arguments are irrelevant and simply unprovable. You can't explain these anomalies and stay within the official story...

But it is very easy to explain all these anomalies if you except that there was another more powerful energy acting on those building than gravity.

Is that an example of Occam's razor? As I said, if you except the truth of 'controlled demo' then no assumptions are needed to explain the collapses, whereas the official story is based on assumptions...

But you just made several erroneous assumptions:

1) FALSE: "If the collapse is supposed to be from steel in the central core failing due to heat, why are the outer columns not also hot enough to fail?" The outer walls did NOT fail from heat.

2) FALSE: "Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to heat to the point of failure is a known fact, ignore it if you wish but it ain't going away." You assumption just melted. The steel neither melted nor did it HAVE to melt. It is a known fact that the steel softened and weakened from the fires in the damaged areas of the two towers, and that those fires were impossible to fight. Ignore that fact if you wish but it ain't going away.

3) FALSE: "As I said, if you except the truth of 'controlled demo' then no assumptions are needed to explain the collapses, whereas the official story is based on assumptions..." You made erroneous assumptions that are not based on any evidence whatsoever. And your third assumption is that there is some magical "official story" rather than the known FACT that there is only the evidence and that evidence has never been refuted by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

So, you have every incentive to start from square one and educate yourself rather than believe the High Priests of the 9/11 Truth Movement.




[edit on 24-2-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by ANOK
^But why are the pieces of facade trailing 'dust' anyway. How do you explain that? What is that 'dust' and where did it come from?

The 'dust' is from the concrete,ceiling tiles, and drywall. The building supposedly 'collapsed' on its own (yeah right) and this dust was forced out through the broken windows. A split second later, as the facades fell away, they also created their own, weaker vortex and 'sucked' dust after them. Similar to the situation whereby the larger building mass falling straight down into its own footprint 'sucked' down other dust and gives the false impression that the debris was arcing up and out.

Same principle for both events.

Other events are at work here, no doubt about it. But massive explosions that would be necessary to propel these 20-40 ton sections of facade up and out is disinfo. Don't fall for that. It is easily debunked and makes the search for the truth of the events of 9/11 all the harder.

Originally posted by jthomasBut you just made several erroneous assumptions:

Sorry but I think you made several erroneous comprehending mistakes.

1) FALSE:...The outer walls did NOT fail from heat...

That was my point, thus the question; why didn't the outer 'mesh' structure fail from heat if the fires were hot enough to cause the much more massive central columns to fail?
Simple question and no assumptions are being made by me.

2) FALSE:…The steel neither melted nor did it HAVE to melt. It is a known fact that the steel softened and weakened from the fires in the damaged areas of the two towers, and that those fires were impossible to fight….

Did I say melted? No I didn’t, I said failed. Another comprehension problem there, or an assumption? I know the steel didn’t melt, but neither did it get hot enough to cause global failure of a steel framed building.
You can spin it any way you want but until you can show me steel that has been damaged to the point of instant global failure by office fires my point will stand. Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to be compromised, especially when the heat source is only covering about 10% of that steel and for only an hour. If you knew anything about steel, other than what 9-11myths tells you, you would see how ridiculous that de-bunker assumption is.
What happens to steel when it is malleable? Does it snap instantly into pieces? Or does it sag, bend, twist, slowly as it heats up? Think about that.

Sorry but your rebuttal just melted…Please go and check what temperature office fires get to. Then go check the temperature it takes to make steel malleable. Then read up on heat transfer, and from that you should be able to figure out why office fires could not have heated up enough of the steel, in an hour, to cause it to globally fail and collapse.

Oh btw your ‘well known fact’ is again an assumption. If it was ‘fact’ you would have proof, there is none.

3) FALSE: You made erroneous assumptions that are not based on any evidence whatsoever. And your third assumption is that there is some magical "official story" rather than the known FACT that there is only the evidence and that evidence has never been refuted by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Sorry but I just proved that it’s you making erroneous assumptions not me. You only feel confident in your argument because you believed what an ‘authority’ told you, and refuse to see the facts that contradict it.
If there is no ‘official story’, as you claim, then why not? Shouldn’t there have been an investigation to find out what happened? And then wouldn’t that be an official version of the events? Or are you admitting the government has not fully explained the events of 9-11 and failed to complete an official investigation? And you’re OK with that?

(BTW by ‘official story’ I mean the NIST report and everything that was set up to support its erroneous findings. What do you think it meant? Do I have to spell out everything for you?)

Please show me where in the NIST report it explains what happened after the collapses were initiated? Please explain what it says about the lack of resistance from undamaged building components. Oh yeah and I’d looove to hear what it said about WTC 7.

So, you have every incentive to start from square one and educate yourself rather than believe the High Priests of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

LOL you must be pretty flexible to be able to fit in both feet at once..

(BTW show me where what I said came from anywhere but my own mind, thanx but some of us don’t need to be told what and how to think)

Did I say melted? No I didn’t, I said failed. Another comprehension problem there, or an assumption? I know the steel didn’t melt, but neither did it get hot enough to cause global failure of a steel framed building.

You can spin it any way you want but until you can show me steel that has been damaged to the point of instant global failure by office fires my point will stand. Office fires do not get hot enough to cause construction steel to be compromised, especially when the heat source is only covering about 10% of that steel and for only an hour. If you knew anything about steel, other than what 9-11myths tells you, you would see how ridiculous that de-bunker assumption is.

Again, FALSE: but neither did it get hot enough to cause global failure of a steel framed building. What happens to steel when it is malleable? Does it snap instantly into pieces? Or does it sag, bend, twist, slowly as it heats up? Think about that. What happens to steel when it is malleable? Does it snap instantly into pieces? Or does it sag, bend, twist, slowly as it heats up? Think about that.

You need to understand that ALL steel structures are built of many interconnected pieces of different shapes, sizes, strengths, and tolerances. The fact STANDS that unfought fires in WTC 2 were sufficient to soften and WEAKEN steel, cause excessive strains on STEEL components never designed to take such forces, that heated steel LOOSES strength when heated to temperatures experienced in both towers, that the structures were ALREADY damaged and had loads redistributed to steel members that subsequently failed. That you are unable to research these FACTS yourself is telling.

Sorry but I just proved that it’s you making erroneous assumptions not me. You only feel confident in your argument because you believed what an ‘authority’ told you, and refuse to see the facts that contradict it.

My authority is the massive, independent evidence. Your "sources" are the High Priests of the 9/11 Truth Movement - Fetzer, Jones, Barrett, Judy "Star Wars Beam" Woods, etc, - those who you believe automatically DESPITE the evidence being to the contrary.

How embarrassing for you.

If there is no ‘official story’, as you claim, then why not? Shouldn’t there have been an investigation to find out what happened? And then wouldn’t that be an official version of the events? Or are you admitting the government has not fully explained the events of 9-11 and failed to complete an official investigation? And you’re OK with that?

(BTW by ‘official story’ I mean the NIST report and everything that was set up to support its erroneous findings. What do you think it meant? Do I have to spell out everything for you?)

LOL. You call all that an "official STORY?" How do you explain that NIST was made up of a MAJORITY of NON-government forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, architects, and structural engineers who all SIGNED their names to the report? How do YOU explain that the methodologyy of the investigation, the evidence, the tests, and the conclusions are fully open to everyone including and ESPECIALLY those people's peers throughout the world, any one of whom could dispute the findings in peer review journals, yet have never done so?

How do YOU explain that you are completely ignorant of those facts?

Please show me where in the NIST report it explains what happened after the collapses were initiated?

Please explain why you continue to use that strawman argument when we all know that collapse initiation is all that needs to be know to understand the CAUSES of the collapses. You just provided one more fact that you believe what you are told without doing a bit of research. You have also demonstrated by your belief in debunked nonsense that you have NEVER read the NIST report.

So, I repeat for your benefit: you have every incentive to start from square one and educate yourself rather than believe the High Priests of the 9/11 Truth Movement. You are just further demonstrating that you 9/11 Truthers are astoundingly ignorant of facts and evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas
The fact STANDS that unfought fires in WTC 2 were sufficient to soften and WEAKEN steel, cause excessive strains on STEEL components never designed to take such forces, that heated steel LOOSES strength when heated to temperatures experienced in both towers, that the structures were ALREADY damaged and had loads redistributed to steel members that subsequently failed. That you are unable to research these FACTS yourself is telling.

Where are you getting your "facts" from? NIST? If so, they even state that the steel tested didn't have temperatures hot enough for failure.

Less than 250 C in all but one case.

My authority is the massive, independent evidence.

What massive "independent" evidence? What "independent" collaboration are you talking about? I've seen NO "independent" investigation.

Your "sources" are the High Priests of the 9/11 Truth Movement - Fetzer, Jones, Barrett, Judy "Star Wars Beam" Woods, etc, - those who you believe automatically DESPITE the evidence being to the contrary.

Again. Post your "evidence". Not all of us need people to tell us how/what to think. Some of us even have engineering/architectural degrees.

ae911truth.org

How embarrassing for you.

Embarrassing? Not when we are free thinkers.

LOL. You call all that an "official STORY?" How do you explain that NIST was made up of a MAJORITY of NON-government forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, architects, and structural engineers who all SIGNED their names to the report?

How do you explain that the director of NIST is Bush appointed?

How do YOU explain that the methodologyy of the investigation, the evidence, the tests, and the conclusions are fully open to everyone including and ESPECIALLY those people's peers throughout the world, any one of whom could dispute the findings in peer review journals, yet have never done so?

How do you explain the methodologies, evidence and tests that contradict the NIST conclusions? Explain that one before we start writting peer reviewed papers please.

Please explain why you continue to use that strawman argument when we all know that collapse initiation is all that needs to be know to understand the CAUSES of the collapses. You just provided one more fact that you believe what you are told without doing a bit of research. You have also demonstrated by your belief in debunked nonsense that you have NEVER read the NIST report.

Yes, there's no need to look any further.

You are just further demonstrating that you 9/11 Truthers are astoundingly ignorant of facts and evidence.

Don't get me started on debunkers and their knowledge/comprehension of physics.

Sorry, Griff, no one needs to repeat the facts to you. They've all been available for years. Since you and Anok are determined to ignore the evidence rather than refute it, there is really not much that can be done for you.

It is a wonder that 9/11 "Truth" consists of nothing but absolute, categorical denial of physical reality, evidence, and the truth. You have nothing to offer but debunked claims and assertions. You demonstrate that nothing matters to you except what your High Priests tell you, knowing full well how much you are gullible sheep. Not one of you has brought any charges against the government. Your movement is dying.

I will offer you help to get beyond your ignorance this critical paper on why you don't know what you don't know. Read it carefully. It's an excellent paper demonstrating the pervasive problems 9/11 Truthers suffer and how to solve them. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should take advantage of learning how to overcome this serious problem:

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Cornell University

Abstract:

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and
logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.

www.apa.org...

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to understand that ALL steel structures are built of many interconnected pieces of different shapes, sizes, strengths, and tolerances. The fact STANDS that unfought fires in WTC 2 were sufficient to soften and WEAKEN steel, cause excessive strains on STEEL components never designed to take such forces, that heated steel LOOSES strength when heated to temperatures experienced in both towers, that the structures were ALREADY damaged and had loads redistributed to steel members that subsequently failed. That you are unable to research these FACTS yourself is telling.

OK bud please prove that office fires can cause construction steel to fail.
I want something that is not connected to 9-11. Good luck in your search.

What forces are you talking about? Fire was the only force acting on those buildings. Fire does not get hot enough to cause failure of steel. If you think it does show me the proof, and again not from a debunker site pls use real physics examples.

My authority is the massive, independent evidence. Your "sources" are the High Priests of the 9/11 Truth Movement - Fetzer, Jones, Barrett, Judy "Star Wars Beam" Woods, etc, - those who you believe automatically DESPITE the evidence being to the contrary.

How embarrassing for you.

Massive authority? More like a massive ego. What sources did I provide?
Sorry but again you are making assumptions about how I come to my conclusions. Sorry but I know enough about basic physics, and have enough engineering experience to make up my own mind thanx.

You call all that an "official STORY?

I don't understand your problem with calling it the official story? What do you call it unofficial?

The methology was this, they had a preconceived conclusion and they fitted what they could to it and ignored what contradicted it, such as the lack of resistance.

Please explain why you continue to use that strawman argument when we all know that collapse initiation is all that needs to be know to understand the CAUSES of the collapses. You just provided one more fact that you believe what you are told without doing a bit of research. You have also demonstrated by your belief in debunked nonsense that you have NEVER read the NIST report.

You obviously not too versed in physics if you think the collapse was inevitable once initiated. It also shows your research hasn't gone much further than 9-11myths (an educated assumption based on your posts).

I wasn't told about the physics, I was taught about it in school like everyone else. I just seem to know how to apply that physics I don't understand why you can't? Maybe because it's not on 9-11myths, or in the NIST report?
The notion that the collapse was inevitable once initiated is a total cop out, it's BS. NIST couldn't explain the collapse after initiation without admitting it was impossible from fire and gravity. So they convince the educationally challenged of the inevitability of global collapse.

BTW I have a hard copy of the NIST report.

So, I repeat for your benefit: you have every incentive to start from square one and educate yourself.

Again you manage both feet at once, you're the man!

[edit on 25/2/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, Griff, no one needs to repeat the facts to you. They've all been available for years. Since you and Anok are determined to ignore the evidence rather than refute it, there is really not much that can be done for you.

I'm asking YOU for the FACTS and EVIDENCE that you think have been available for years. Please provide them.

It is a wonder that 9/11 "Truth" consists of nothing but absolute, categorical denial of physical reality, evidence, and the truth.

I can say the same about debunkers.

You have nothing to offer but debunked claims and assertions.

Really? Please tell me what my claims are that have been "debunked". I'll have you know that I'm a structural engineer and have NOT been debunked at all here. Please show me where my "claims" have been debunked.

For one. The only thing I "claim" is there was a cover-up. Prove me wrong.

You demonstrate that nothing matters to you except what your High Priests tell you, knowing full well how much you are gullible sheep.

I don't know why you keep saying this when we keep saying that we are understanding physics and not going by what a web-site says.

Talk about gullible sheep.

Not one of you has brought any charges against the government. Your movement is dying.

So, now we have to bring charges against the government for our "claims" to be valid?

Maybe you should look up Morgan Reynolds?

And you say you're versed in 9/11.

I will offer you help to get beyond your ignorance this critical paper on why you don't know what you don't know.

When you can calculate a moment, forces, stress, strain, elasticity, beam-column design etc. let me know and we'll talk about who is ignorant on a subject and who isn't.

Read it carefully. It's an excellent paper demonstrating the pervasive problems 9/11 Truthers suffer and how to solve them. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should take advantage of learning how to overcome this serious problem:

From my perspective, it is you who needs to heed this paper.

I can only remind Anok and Griff that despite their inability to pay attention, the burden of proof remains on the shoulders of them and all 9/11 deniers to refute the massive evidence against their unsupported and/or debunked claims and assertions.

Six years after 9/11, Anok and Griff and their 9/11 Denial Movement remain hopelessly bogged down with no progress to their goal of "proving" 9/11 was "an inside job."

The rational world can only sit back shaking our heads and ask them exactly WHEN do they propose to bring evidence to the table and file charges against the "government?" Of course, both questions continue to be ignored, with the added whine that the "9/11 Truth Movement Does NOT have to support its claims! They are true because we SAY so!"

In my previous post I have pointed Griff and Anok to a source of great help for them.

But, if they insist on persisting in making false and unsupported assertions because of their ignorance of the facts, an opportunity has just arisen for them to "put up or shut up":

Monday, February 25, 2008

Challenge to Truthers: Stump Mark Roberts!

Our buddy Gravy from the JREF forums will appear again on Ron Wieck's Hardfire program, along with Arthur Scheuerman to discuss World Trade Center 7. The show will be live at 9:00 PM Eastern time tomorrow night, February 26. Having been unable to find a 9-11 "Truther" willing to debate these gentlemen, Ron will throw open the phone lines, and 9-11 conspiracy theorists are specifically encouraged to call in with their questions and challenges. (bolding mine)

The main number is 718-935-9598. If it's busy, call 917-763-9896.

You can watch the show live tomorrow night here:
www.briconline.org...

Put up or shut up, Truthers!

Source: screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

I look forward to your phone calls, Anok and Griff. Let the fun begin!

Originally posted by jthomas
I can only remind Anok and Griff that despite their inability to pay attention, the burden of proof remains on the shoulders of them and all 9/11 deniers to refute the massive evidence against their unsupported and/or debunked claims and assertions.

First: The onus of proof is on you and your theory of planes and fires being the culprit. Which has NOT been done.

Six years after 9/11, Anok and Griff and their 9/11 Denial Movement remain hopelessly bogged down with no progress to their goal of "proving" 9/11 was "an inside job."

Another assumption.

First: I belong to NO "movement".

Second: Where have I stated as fact that "9/11 was an inside job"?

The rational world can only sit back shaking our heads and ask them exactly WHEN do they propose to bring evidence to the table and file charges against the "government?"

I guess you didn't care to look up Morgan Reynolds? It's not my problem you are too lazy to do so.

Of course, both questions continue to be ignored, with the added whine that the "9/11 Truth Movement Does NOT have to support its claims! They are true because we SAY so!"

No. The only truth of the matter is that it is impossible to have symmetrical failure of a braced building with asymmetrical damage.

Answer that riddle and I might reply to more of your posts.

But, as far as I can see, you have brought NADA to the table.

So, this is my last response to you.

Not because you have owon an argument, but because talking with closed minded people is getting rather redundant.

In my previous post I have pointed Griff and Anok to a source of great help for them.

And I also see that you have not taken on MY challenge. Do you even know what a moment is?

But, if they insist on persisting in making false and unsupported assertions because of their ignorance of the facts, an opportunity has just arisen for them to "put up or shut up":

What ignorance of facts would that be? Again. Posts your facts. Or you "put up or shut up".

Monday, February 25, 2008

Challenge to Truthers: Stump Mark Roberts!

Our buddy Gravy from the JREF forums will appear again on Ron Wieck's Hardfire program, along with Arthur Scheuerman to discuss World Trade Center 7. The show will be live at 9:00 PM Eastern time tomorrow night, February 26. Having been unable to find a 9-11 "Truther" willing to debate these gentlemen, Ron will throw open the phone lines, and 9-11 conspiracy theorists are specifically encouraged to call in with their questions and challenges. (bolding mine)

The main number is 718-935-9598. If it's busy, call 917-763-9896.

You can watch the show live tomorrow night here:
www.briconline.org...

Put up or shut up, Truthers!

Source: screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

I look forward to your phone calls, Anok and Griff. Let the fun begin!

First: Why would I want to debate about structural engineering with a TOUR GUIDE?

Yup. I bet he has ALL the answers.

[edit on 2/25/2008 by Griff]

Griff,

The fact that you continue to illustrate my case against you just demonstrates your need to take advantage of the help to which I provided a link.

And remember, the burden of proof is on YOU and the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

Looking forward to hearing you debunked tomorrow by someone far more knowledgeable about 9/11 than you ever could hope to be. See wtc7lies.googlepages.com... for your education about the facts of 9/11, those facts you cannot possibly refute.

You're welcome to debunk all his links, but we know you can't.

Originally posted by Griff

First: Why would I want to debate about structural engineering with a TOUR GUIDE?

You mean why would anyone bother to debate with you on any subject since you know nothing about what happened on 9/11.

At least Mark Roberts can back himself up. You can't.

Originally posted by jthomasThe fact that you continue to illustrate my case against you just demonstrates your need to take advantage of the help to which I provided a link.

What point would I be illustrating for you? That you have no clue what the hell you're talking about?

Especially since you see me as a member of some "truth movement" when I have told you I am not.

And remember, the burden of proof is on YOU and the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

Physics is the only burden of proof I need.

BTW, the physical laws are on MY side.

Looking forward to hearing you debunked tomorrow by someone far more knowledgeable about 9/11 than you ever could hope to be. See wtc7lies.googlepages.com... for your education about the facts of 9/11, those facts you cannot possibly refute.

Again, I'd like to know how a TOUR GUIDE is more knowledgable about 9/11 than a structural engineer? I looked at his page. It is full of links to other people's works. Yeah, some real original thought there.

You're welcome to debunk all his links, but we know you can't.

Let's try this from another direction.

Try to debunk this page:

ae911truth.org

Have fun. Those professionals (myself included) could debunk circles around Mr. Gravy. Why bother? Especially when people like you have already closed their minds to reason?

Originally posted by jthomas
You mean why would anyone bother to debate with you on any subject since you know nothing about what happened on 9/11.

At least Mark Roberts can back himself up. You can't.

Ooohhh. Am I suppossed to be impressed by Mr. Robert's knowledge of NYC?

What can't I back up? I have posted my transcripts here proving I am who I say I am. BTW, I have FAR more education than a TOUR GUIDE!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Griff

Again, I'd like to know how a TOUR GUIDE is more knowledgable about 9/11 than a structural engineer? I looked at his page. It is full of links to other people's works. Yeah, some real original thought there.

EXACTLY. He provides sources. Duh. Of course, he knows far more than you which is why you are scared to death of Mark Roberts.

Try to debunk this page:

ae911truth.org

You don't get it, still. I don't have to debunk anyone. The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is always on those making claims. That be you and the 9/11 Truth Movement. You know it and I know it.

So quit weaseling, Griff. You have nothing.

Watch this and provide a detailed debunking if you can Griff or anyone who can.

Google Video Link

Really interesting stuff if you don't just dismiss it outright as any believer in anything is liable to do with anything that refutes them.

And no cop outs. If you think its wrong tell me exactly how.
Say nothing unsubstantiated.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]