911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

There is no evidence for CD.

You keep repeating this like it's a relevant answer to the question I am asking you. You KNOW you are doing this on purpose. Just stay in your own little world man, you'll get knocked out of it one day.

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.

So where is your positive evidence that they weren't explosives or bombs, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So where is your positive evidence that they weren't explosives or bombs, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

Where is YOUR evidence that they were bombs or explosives, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

There is zero evidence for bombs/explosives being used in any WTC buildings!

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

You seem to be confused about what evidence is. Random noises DO count. If they sound like explosions, they are evidence. Watching the way the buildings fall is evidence. You are looking for the word "proof." We do not have proof of these things but we do have evidence for them.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
So where is your positive evidence that they weren't explosives or bombs, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

Where is YOUR evidence that they were bombs or explosives, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

There is zero evidence for bombs/explosives being used in any WTC buildings!

Was there a proper investigation looking for bombs/explosives in the aftermath? Just asking.

reply to post by Lillydale


Controlled demolition does not use explosions spaced over many minutes of time, such as being claimed here. It has to do with the uncertainties of the effects of individual explosive charges and the loss of control when they are widely spaced in time.

As to physical evidence, the caps and wires are long gone. All that is left to search for is a paper trail.

"Was there a proper investigation looking for bombs/explosives in the aftermath? Just asking."

Are you kidding? There wasn't a proper investigation looking into anything. They couldn't get rid of the incriminating evidence fast enough. In the real world, tampering with and disposing of evidence from a crime scene is a serious offense. The fact that they blatantly disregarded such fundamental investigative protocol speaks volumes.

"Controlled demolition does not use explosions spaced over many minutes of time, such as being claimed here."

Who is to say that ALL of the explosions which were heard were related to the controlled demolition of the Towers? Maybe there was another reason for these explosions, such as to clear the area of potential witnesses or to eliminate certain evidence in the buildings and cover their ass in case their plot didn't go as planned. Or, these explosions could have been set off as some type of necessary distraction.

If you're just going to think about these events linearly, I'm afraid you won't get too far with your investigation.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Was there a proper investigation looking for bombs/explosives in the aftermath? Just asking."

Are you kidding? There wasn't a proper investigation looking into anything. They couldn't get rid of the incriminating evidence fast enough. In the real world, tampering with and disposing of evidence from a crime scene is a serious offense. The fact that they blatantly disregarded such fundamental investigative protocol speaks volumes.

I know that and you know that. I am still really interested in how pteridine answers this.

Yeah, I know - I thought I'd give him a helping hand. Just because we're on different sides of the fence doesn't mean we can't assist eachother once in a while.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
So where is your positive evidence that they weren't explosives or bombs, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

Where is YOUR evidence that they were bombs or explosives, that makes you so damned sure of yourself?

Wow, dereks. The first 100 times you answered my question with another question (this exact same one) I thought you were just trying to avoid a straight answer. But now I realize you really ARE suffering from some kind of disorder where you can't remember more than a day in the past!


Answering a question with another question is not a straightforward, logical response.

Also you are implying this fallacy:

Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

www.theskepticsguide.org...


But it's not my burden of proof here in the first place. It's yours. That is exactly why I am refusing to offer positive evidence that they WERE explosives. Because you aren't thinking logically in the first place, which is a greater and more immediate problem in our discussion than whether or not I have evidence. All I'm asking is you either admit you don't know what caused the explosions, or you post evidence to support whatever you believe caused them (or didn't cause them). If you can't do that then you simply have no response at all. Asking another question as an answer to my question, is stupid.

Do you think you are always right in the end, no matter what you post or how many times what you post is wrong?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by pteridine
Controlled demolition does not use explosions spaced over many minutes of time

Why can't they? Does the building start healing itself unless they're all set off at once?

It has to do with the uncertainties of the effects of individual explosive charges and the loss of control when they are widely spaced in time.

Yet the towers and WTC7 all fell straight down with impeccable symmetry the most experienced demolition teams would be hard pressed to recreate. Ah, your argument makes perfect sense now.

As to physical evidence, the caps and wires are long gone. All that is left to search for is a paper trail.

Right because they started hauling everything off before anyone looked through it all. They just let engineers browse through a landfill site and picked a few hundred pieces to save for NIST.


So are we clear that we don't understand what was causing all of the explosions yet? Or is there still some evidence to indicate what they were or weren't that you're holding back on?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Controlled demolition does not use explosions spaced over many minutes of time, such as being claimed here. It has to do with the uncertainties of the effects of individual explosive charges and the loss of control when they are widely spaced in time.

As to physical evidence, the caps and wires are long gone. All that is left to search for is a paper trail.

I am still waiting for a straight up answer to my second question to you before I attempt to deal with this mess. It is a simple YES or NO question.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The burden is on YOU on this thread, since you think you have all the answers, to prove what was causing these explosions.

I haven't claimed that I know what caused them, so quit lying. I and others have given alternatives.

I know what didn't cause them - explosives, since they lack the telltales discussed.

What they were is irrelevant, since unless you have evidence otherwise, it is proven that these explosions and noises, whatever they may be, lack the ability to do any steel cutting, and thus aid in bringing down the building.

And FYI, your continued asking to bring positive evidence that they weren't explosives is asking us to prove a negative, the most childish of fallacies. So grow up and ask logical questions for a change, if you can formulate one.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

The burden is on YOU on this thread, since you think you have all the answers, to prove what was causing these explosions.

I haven't claimed that I know what caused them, so quit lying. I and others have given alternatives.

I know what didn't cause them - explosives, since they lack the telltales discussed.

Why do you OSers think that repeating this will make it true? When was it proven they could not be explosives? Link? Please do not try to push lies on purpose, it does even more damage to your cause.

Originally posted by Lillydale


Why do you OSers think that repeating this will make it true? When was it proven they could not be explosives? Link? Please do not try to push lies on purpose, it does even more damage to your cause.

Here is the CameraPlanet footage that truthers ignore. The close up video shot of the collapse initiation. Please show the explosions.

It is a 50 second video....start it at 15 seconds.

www.vidoemo.com...

Youtube video:



[edit on 8-2-2010 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Here is the CameraPlanet footage that truthers ignore. .

Why do you ignore all the first repsonders statements about explosions?

reply to post by REMISNE


Roger...this will be my only response to you.

In the video above, please point out the explosions.

reply to post by ImAPepper


Shows how intense the fire was in that corner of the building too. Distinct lack of any explosive activity with the weakened wall actually moving inward.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
In the video above, please point out the explosions.

After you explain why you are calling the first repsonders liers.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by ImAPepper

 

Shows how intense the fire was in that corner of the building too. Distinct lack of any explosive activity with the weakened wall actually moving inward.

EXACTLY, Pilgrum!!


As you can see in the above post from the truther Remise, they try to bait you by making baseless accusations. He too has failed to show the explosions.