911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by bsbray11
When you realize and admit you can't debunk the idea that they were actually caused by explosives/bombs, then maybe we can move on.

You are wrong, they were actually caused by exploding tooth fairies, as their HQ was in the WTC.

When you realize and admit you can't debunk the idea that they were actually caused by exploding tooth fairies, then maybe we can move on

reply to post by dereks


If tooth fairies did in fact explode, wouldn't kids who put thier teeth under pillows be getting their heads blown off on a daily basis? Some people, I want the mods to know that I'm not saying dereks specifically, but some people are idiots.

9/11 actually never happened. Its just a ploy set up by the big media machine, and all of the supposed "victims" and their families aren't real either.

[edit on 2/9/2010 by budaruskie]

Originally posted by hooper
Soon as you show them - written reports, proper sources, etc. Not 911 conspiracy websites.

Funny comming from someone who cannot post sources at all.

Since when are the sites i posted conspiracy websites? They are the same type of sites you get your info from.





[edit on 9-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you're going to claim it couldn't have been an explosive/bomb then I want you to PROVE IT

I have proven it to every rational person reading this thread.

You own personal and irrational standards of proof means nothing to anyone, and no one cares what you think.

The sooner that you realize that no one cares about your own personal feelings about "the man" and 9/11 interest no one but other kids that like to play at being some kind of political criminal, since they can do this in the USA without any threat of danger. You are cowards who abuse all the liberties and rights that American society has given to you.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I have proven it to every rational person reading this thread.

What was that proof again?

Here's the video again:




Still waiting for positive evidence of what it was, or why it couldn't have been caused by explosives or bombs.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
You already said "no" but you sure as hell didn't act like you meant it.

What???

Bring forth your overwhelming evidence of demolition. You claim loud, randomly spaced noises of unknown origin to be "proof" of demolitions.

Controlled demolitions are not done that way, as I explained earlier.

Judy Wood could claim that the noises were the result of structural heating by the space ray and challenge you to prove that they weren't. Using your logic, they must be "proof" of the space ray, too.

Dueling conspiracies would be a great thread.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You own personal and irrational standards of proof means nothing to anyone, and no one cares what you think.

Obviously YOU care or you would not be here arguing.

The sooner that you realize that no one cares about your own personal feelings about "the man" and 9/11 interest no one but other kids that like to play at being some kind of political criminal, since they can do this in the USA without any threat of danger. You are cowards who abuse all the liberties and rights that American society has given to you.

Our society has given us the right to question our government. Sorry that you are against this. Maybe you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or some other country?

[edit on 10-2-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by pteridine
You claim loud, randomly spaced noises of unknown origin to be "proof" of demolitions.

How does 20 minute intervals become "randomly spaced"? Or is that a strawman you have constructed?

Controlled demolitions are not done that way, as I explained earlier.

Yet you believe chaotic fire and failures will act in the same way as a controlled demolition. Please explain further because your chaotic fire and failure theory contradicts your "prescision" theory of a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by pteridine
You claim loud, randomly spaced noises of unknown origin to be "proof" of demolitions.

How does 20 minute intervals become "randomly spaced"? Or is that a strawman you have constructed?

Controlled demolitions are not done that way, as I explained earlier.

Yet you believe chaotic fire and failures will act in the same way as a controlled demolition. Please explain further because your chaotic fire and failure theory contradicts your "prescision" theory of a controlled demolition.

Are you claiming 20 minute intervals for all noises? The videos posted did not seem to have that, but many videos have been "edited."

I never claimed a "precision" theory of a controlled demolition. I stated how such demolitons were done, and widely spaced explosions are not how they are done.

A demolition is designed to cause key structural failures and gravity does the rest. The key structural failures in the case of the WTC were caused by airplanes and fires. Gravity did the rest.

Originally posted by pteridine
Are you claiming 20 minute intervals for all noises?

No. I'm talking about the seizmic charts. Adding in a few reporters on scene claiming the explosions were happening at 20 minute intervals too.

I never claimed a "precision" theory of a controlled demolition. I stated how such demolitons were done, and widely spaced explosions are not how they are done.

So, you are just stating the obvious then? Or are you trying to insinuate that a demolition could NOT be done in such a manner?

A demolition is designed to cause key structural failures and gravity does the rest. The key structural failures in the case of the WTC were caused by airplanes and fires. Gravity did the rest.

You say tomaaato, I say tomatooo
You say potaaaato, I say potatooo

Meaning, we will have to agree to disagree on this point until there is more precise science to determine one way or the other. Because your theory is still unprovable as is mine.

Originally posted by Nutter
No. I'm talking about the seizmic charts.

care to show us these seismic charts showing this 20minute interval?

Adding in a few reporters on scene claiming the explosions were happening at 20 minute intervals too.

care to show us this video?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You own personal and irrational standards of proof means nothing to anyone, and no one cares what you think.

Obviously YOU care or you would not be here arguing.

An argument would require that both sides have a point.

The TM has none, other than, as I explained, to rail against "the man" while staying safe behind their computer screen.

My point here is to show the irrationality of the TM, and their irrational standards of proof and evidence. I've done that.

BTW, did you ever come up with any conclusions based on the links I gave to you about actual, real world fire tests and steel heating?

I notice that after I gave you those links that prove steel heating rates, both you and ANOK ran away like girls. Guess that means I have proven that point also, since neither of you have any rebuttal.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I notice that after I gave you those links that prove steel heating rates, both you and ANOK ran away like girls.

Good way to have debate there. I find when someone is an ass, then they deserve the ignore button. Welcome to it.

Guess that means I have proven that point also, since neither of you have any rebuttal.

You get an A for proving fire heats steel. You still have yet to prove that the WTC fires were able to heat the WTC steel to such levels.

Anyway, according to NIST, it wasn't even the heat of the steel that caused failure to begin with. What you need to really prove is the OS where flimsy floor trusses are able to pull in columns designed to resist huricane winds enough to cause failure.

THAT is where you are lacking.

But, go ahead. Keep calling me names. It only proves your own childishness.

Originally posted by Nutter
Because your theory is still unprovable as is mine.

So you admit that your theory is unprovable.

In that case doesn't it make sense to opt for the more likely explanation?

reply to post by Nutter


I am not insinuating anything. I am stating that a controlled demolition needs control and would not be done in such a fashion. Charges spaced many minutes apart in a burning building are not controlled, especially with unknown structural damage caused by the aircraft and fires.
How many were exactly 20 minutes apart? There seemed to be many more than time would allow, so some must have been less than 20 minutes apart, on-scene reporters and youtube edits, notwithstanding.

If a demolition took place, it was uncontrolled and not discernible from the uncontrolled collapse caused by aircraft strikes and subsequent fires.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Nutter

Adding in a few reporters on scene claiming the explosions were happening at 20 minute intervals too.

care to show us this video?

I've seen a video where a reporter some blocks away from the WTC says that they are hearing explosions about every twenty minutes or so.

To suggest this is concrete evidence of "regular detonations" is of course ridiculous.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Nutter
No. I'm talking about the seizmic charts.

care to show us these seismic charts showing this 20minute interval?

Do a search for FEMA WTC seizmic records. Look at them and get back to me.

www.911review.com...

11:01:07 Further collapse
11:15:04 Further collapse
11:29:46 Further collapse

11:01:07 to 11:15:04 is 13 minutes 57 seconds.

11:15:04 to 11:29:46 is 14 minutes 42 seconds.

Then the chart cuts off.

Sorry, I stated 20 minutes instead of 15.

Originally posted by pteridine
If a demolition took place, it was uncontrolled and not discernible from the uncontrolled collapse caused by aircraft strikes and subsequent fires.

I agree to an extent. You have no idea if the demolition was controlled or not because it was indiscernable from the uncrontrolled variables. Therefore, to act like you do is pompous to say the least. No offense, but that is the way I take any of you guys who claim to know the truth. Either side. There are many pompous posters on the "truther" side also.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
To suggest this is concrete evidence of "regular detonations" is of course ridiculous.

Strawman much? I said it was evidence that some explosions were not "randomly spaced". Try to keep up please.

reply to post by Nutter


I say it was uncontrolled because of reasons I stated above. It was not pomposity, just simple fact regarding the "controlling" of demolitions. Unknown damage due to the aircraft and fires coupled with the top-down failure modes, say uncontrolled collapse. There would be no way to place and size the charges to accomplish a controlled demolition.