911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

reply to post by dereks




You continue to group all conspirator's in the same group.....


This is not wise, and show's a lack of intelligence on your part. With statements like that... Why are you still here on ATS ???????

If you truly believe that our qualms carry no weight, then be gone with yourself.


You've done nothing to contribute to the thread, and I've yet to see any science to prove that they weren't bombs..


Peer Reviewed Literature please.

reply to post by pteridine

That may be correct. But since the load distribution between the internal and external columns was through the hat truss at the top of the building, would a break in the load bearing capability anywhere in the core still distribute the load through the hat truss to the external columns? And would this alternate distribution scenario then result in the failure of the exterior columns at the weakest area (i.e. the crash site) just like NIST is proposing? I wonder if NIST ran a model of that scenario.

You're also assuming that the expert in 93 was referring to an "Achille's Heel" in the basement.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Can you please provide your positive evidence that "they lack the telltale signs of known explosives"?

Sure.

To date, zero videos have the required telltale crack that cutter charges would need.

You, of course, have zero evidence that show the opposite.

End of discussion. You have lost the argument, although like your kin, you don't realize that lying there with both your arms and legs cut off means you've lost the fight......

reply to post by Joey Canoli





Pot... Meet Kettle...


And truly educated people frequently refrain from stereotypes as your signature states quite the opposite , cause stereo types are neither educated or fitting into having some sort of educated discussion.


Furthermore, you declaring yourself the winner has no more substance than "Gog" the Caveman standing on his hill declaring himself king of the world...

Ultimately it's irrelevant because you yourself didn't not back up your claim with anything other than stating " You have no evidence, so it cannot be such"

With your same logic, we can apply the same thing to your argument.

"You have no evidence, so it cannot be such"



[edit on 6-2-2010 by Hmmm101]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by pteridine

 

You're also assuming that the expert in 93 was referring to an "Achille's Heel" in the basement.

The 1500 pounds of explosives that you postulated, if used to initiate any sort of collapse, would certainly have been noticed on video and audio recordings.
The basement is most likely what the expert was referring to as he suggested a slightly different placement or an additional 500 pounds of explosives would have brought down the building.

[edit on 2/6/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you please provide your positive evidence that "they lack the telltale signs of known explosives"?

Sure.

To date, zero videos have the required telltale crack that cutter charges would need.

How exactly do you know the explosion in the video posted earlier wasn't from a cutter charge?





Post your evidence proving what the source of that sound was. Or just realize the simple and obvious fact, that YOU DON'T KNOW, and shut up about it already. There is nothing to argue about. You either put up, or you shut up. The burden is on YOU on this thread, since you think you have all the answers, to prove what was causing these explosions.

End of discussion. You have lost the argument, although like your kin, you don't realize that lying there with both your arms and legs cut off means you've lost the fight......

It's not an argument to lose.

It's a question you constantly refuse to answer.


Where is your evidence that the explosions weren't caused by bombs or explosives? Your answer here is to deny there was an explosion at all. Which obviously is the wrong answer.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by pteridine
The tapes have noise on them. No one can show what the noise was. You seem to have already concluded that demolitions were involved and that we were hearing them explode.

No, you keep deflecting to this and other logical fallacies that have nothing to do with the specific question I am asking.

I am simply asking you where your evidence is that these things could not be bombs or explosives.

You can't give me this evidence, so why are YOU so certain that they MUST have been caused by something else? You realize you are basically talking out of two sides of your mouth simultaneously, saying you don't know what was causing them yet you somehow know what was causing them anyway? Even though you literally have no idea?

Originally posted by dereks
and science has proven it was not done by bombs/explosives!

I am still waiting for you to post the science that proves this.

If you are going to make a claim, you should be able to back it up. Or else you have no reason to make such a claim in the first place.

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, you keep deflecting to this and other logical fallacies that have nothing to do with the specific question I am asking.

I am simply asking you where your evidence is that these things could not be bombs or explosives.

Until there is evidence of controlled demolition, they are random noises of falling objects and bursting vessels. If you posulate explosives, you must provide the support.

Note that I responded to you. I helped you with a calculation that you might not have the experience to do. I allowed you to select what parts of the structure you felt had been compromised by demolitions. Then I asked what such a demolition would look and sound like.

Do you think that a controlled demolition would consist of a series of random explosions that do not result in collapse for some significant time?

You have reverted to your old stand-by "logical fallacies" arguments that you trot out whenever you are at a loss for words.

You claim demolition without evidence. Is that a logical fallacy?

reply to post by pteridine

If it was not demolition then perhaps you can explain why you don’t believe it was.
I am sure you have some credible evidence that will dismiss demolition, and the sound of explosions that were witnessed by hundreds of credible eyewitness.

"And truly educated people frequently refrain from stereotypes as your signature states quite the opposite , cause stereo types are neither educated or fitting into having some sort of educated discussion."

C'mon, leave the guy alone - he probably just wants to relive his kindergarten heydays. When somebody has a telegraphic signature like that, at least you know the level of intellect you're dealing with.

Of course those were explosives. How else would three buildings collapse in a perfectly controlled demolition manner if explosives were not used? Only a moron/retard/sucker would believe a bunch of con artists claiming that oxygen starved fires can initiate a symmetrical collapse in a steel framed building.

If the collapse went down like these OS apologist clowns claim, would you ever step foot in a tall building again?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

If the collapse went down like these OS apologist clowns claim, would you ever step foot in a tall building again?

That is why I feel so safe in skyscrapers, because I don’t believe in the OS fairytales

Of course those were explosives. How else would three buildings collapse in a perfectly controlled demolition manner if explosives were not used?

It couldn’t, and I do not believe there is a record of it that proves it either.

Originally posted by pteridine
Until there is evidence of controlled demolition, they are random noises of falling objects and bursting vessels. If you posulate explosives, you must provide the support.

I cannot understand how you can be so blind to your own hypocrisy here. You say since I haven't provided any other supporting evidence, it couldn't possibly be explosives, and must be "falling objects and bursting vessels" even though you haven't provided any evidence for THAT either!

And I could go into other reasons why I believe the buildings were demolished, but I would demand the same fairness in logic and reasoning on those points as I am on this one, and I'm not seeing it at all. I intentionally have not posted evidence, because I am asking YOU to post evidence first for YOURS. Your entire argument consists of just literally being argumentative with whatever evidence we provide for things like explosives. Without us posting our arguments first, you realize you have absolutely nothing at all because there's nothing to argue with and you STILL don't have evidence.

Note that I responded to you. I helped you with a calculation that you might not have the experience to do.

And you do have experience judging what is making a sound and where exactly it's coming from, just from listening to a recording of it? What kind of experience is that?

I allowed you to select what parts of the structure you felt had been compromised by demolitions. Then I asked what such a demolition would look and sound like.

Well that's awfully generous of you and everything, but it doesn't provide evidence that the explosions were falling objects or "bursting vessels." If you don't have any positive evidence for your own claim then you are no different at all from me. And that's the best case scenario, assuming I can't provide additional evidence that they were caused by explosives.

Do you think that a controlled demolition would consist of a series of random explosions that do not result in collapse for some significant time?

This also does not answer my question, is a diversion, and thus a logical fallacy. I don't just say it just to say it. Answering a question with a bunch of other questions is OBVIOUSLY not a logical response. You didn't have a debate team at your high school did you? But even ignoring the fact that I don't have to honor that with a response at all, since it is a fallacy, can you explain to me how you were able to conclude that the "random explosions" didn't result in significant damage to parts of the structure?

You claim demolition without evidence. Is that a logical fallacy?

No because that is not what we're talking about. If we were then I would be posting evidence to support that. But on this thread, we're not. Start another thread if you want to talk about all the other evidence for demolition with me. But on this thread YOU are making positive claims about what the explosions must be caused by and I want to see evidence for THAT.

reply to post by pteridine

"If they had found the exact architectural Achilles' heel [of the World Trade Center] or if the bomb had been a little bit bigger, not much more, 500 pounds more, I think it would have brought her down. It's really scary."

Not to belabor the point as what I raised is complete speculation anyway, but if you don't mind, I would love for you to point out to me the grammatical structure in the above quote from which you derived "a slightly different placement." I'm really just curious how you came to this conclusion, as when I read the quote I do not see any mention of distance or proximity in the above quote as concerns the "exact architectural Achilles' heel."

reply to post by NIcon


The option was another 500 pounds of FGAN or finding the "exact Achilles Heel." This implies that the charge was close to being in the right place and if it were slightly larger, the building would have collapsed.

reply to post by bsbray11


You are implying that explosives going off over the time from the moment of impact to the time of collapse, many minutes later, are a way that controlled demolitions are done. You are saying that booming noises are all explosions from controlled demolitions.

I am saying that this is not a way that controlled demolitions are done. I am saying that there is no physical evidence of explosives. I am saying that cutter charge noises are sharp, sequential, and occur over a short timeframe. I am saying that no physical evidence of demolitions was reported, and that the sounds of controlled demolition do not match what was on the tapes, hence no demolition occurred, based on the facts.

You demand evidence from others but do not postulate a testible theory, either because you do not have the technical knowledge or know that you cannot defend it. This is a fallacy called a "failure to state" and is common among those that are afraid of losing arguments or those that like to troll.

I have given you information needed to post a testible theory and see where it leads. You do not want to do this as you have formed conclusions and are desperately searching for evidence to support them. You will come up empty, again.

Are you ready to post a testible theory or are you too afraid to do so?

Originally posted by pteridine
You are implying that explosives going off over the time from the moment of impact to the time of collapse, many minutes later, are a way that controlled demolitions are done. You are saying that booming noises are all explosions from controlled demolitions.

No, I am asking you why they COULD NOT have been that, OR what evidence you have that those explosions were caused by ANYTHING ELSE.

I am saying that this is not a way that controlled demolitions are done.

Then prove why staggering detonations over time would not destroy relevant structure just the same in preparation for it all to collapse.

the sounds of controlled demolition do not match what was on the tapes

Prove it. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

You demand evidence from others

And so do you. Hypocrite much?

but do not postulate a testible theory

And neither have you. Hypocrite much?

either because you do not have the technical knowledge or know that you cannot defend it.

Or because me giving you evidence is not what this thread is about. This has been stated since.... page 1. Come on man, I KNOW you aren't this dense, you HAVE to realize what I am saying by now and realize YOU are the one being asked to prove your case now, not me.

This is a fallacy called a "failure to state" and is common among those that are afraid of losing arguments or those that like to troll.

Considering you're guilty of also failing to deliver evidence for your theories, you must also be demonstrating behavior typical of those "afraid of losing arguments" (you're projecting there aren't you?) and liking to troll. But the difference between me and you is, I'm the one asking for evidence for your theories and your demands for me to prove something instead are just your desperate cry for changing the direction of the discussion so you won't have to prove what you believe. Because you already know you can't.

I have given you information needed to post a testible theory and see where it leads.

Yeah, you told me to "guess" and "estimate." I already have and I see no reason to believe these explosions could not have been caused by explosives or bombs, and I keep asking you to tell me why exactly they could not have been those things, and you have refused to give a good reason every single time. You believe NONE did it, so even ONE explosive should have been able to do the job according to your own reasoning.

You do not want to do this as you have formed conclusions and are desperately searching for evidence to support them.

Here you are projecting again. This is exactly why you have not been able to give me a straight answer once. Man, talking to people like you is like a free lesson in classic denial and Freudian projection, I swear. I am the one asking a question you can't deliver evidence for, and you're trying to switch around to say I'm the one that can't deliver the evidence, even though it was never my responsibility to on this thread!

I already told you, start your own thread if you want me to post evidence that supports the idea that the buildings were demolished. But if you do you will be admitting that you REALIZE that this thread is about YOU posting YOUR evidence, though really I already know that you realize that's what this thread is about. You realize you are diverting every single time you refuse to answer me. There is no way you could possibly be so ignorant as to not realize you are doing this every time I ask. Like I said, talking to you is like a free course in projection and denial.

You will come up empty, again.

And another projection.


So I'll ask these questions again, but exactly as you predict of yourself with your projection, you will be unable to answer them -- AGAIN.


Where is your positive evidence that demonstrates the explosions could not have been caused by bombs or explosives?

Where is any positive evidence demonstrating what was causing the explosions?

Are you ready to post a testible theory or are you too afraid to do so?

Are you ready to face up to the fact that this thread is about YOU posting YOUR evidence, or are you going to keep playing pretend in your own little world, like no one can read what page 1 of this thread asks?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Or because me giving you evidence is not what this thread is about.

That is because you have zero evidence explosives were involved in bringing down the 3 towers. You go on and on expecting others to prove a negative, yet you are unable to prove explosives were in fact used.

And you cannot supply any evidence at all that explosives were used is because.... no explosives were involved in bringing down the 3 towers!

Where is your positive evidence that demonstrates the explosions could not have been caused by bombs or explosives?

You are asking him to prove a negative, which is stupid!

[edit on 6/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
Or because me giving you evidence is not what this thread is about.

That is because you have zero evidence explosives were involved in bringing down the 3 towers. You go on and on expecting others to prove a negative, yet you are unable to prove explosives were in fact used.

Asking you to prove what exactly caused those explosions is NOT asking you to prove a negative.

If you can't prove what was causing them, then you simply don't know what was causing them. End of discussion.


If you want to tell me you somehow KNOW that they WEREN'T explosives/bombs, like you explicitly claimed yourself,

Originally posted by dereks
and science has proven it was not done by bombs/explosives!

then PROVE IT!


You are really telling me you are so ignorant of formal debates, you don't see where you just asserted that you COULD prove a negative? But now you say you can't? You just contradicted yourself.


So where is your positive evidence to demonstrate what exactly was causing the explosions? Whenever you are ready to admit you have no evidence, and you have no idea what in the hell they were, is fine with me.

reply to post by bsbray11

There is no evidence for CD.

Random noises do not count. If you want to believe that they were all explosions and that explosions occurring over a relatively long period of time are used in controlled demolitions, go ahead. You are not the first to want the conspiracy bad enough to claim such.