Somebody called me a "Truther" for the first time.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"Squibs" are never seen anywhere besides controlled demolitions. If you can't provide an image or video of a "squib" that is not from a controlled demolition, then there's nothing more to debate on this subject.

That's not an entirely fair argument, because squibs may also be seen in events such as when a commercial airliner crashes at high speed into a skyscraper. It's just that it doesn't happen very often.

Eg - if I employ your logic in reverse I could ask you to show me an example of a building failure resulting from the high speed crash of a commercial airliner into it that did not result in squibs. By your logic if you can't do that then there's nothing more to debate.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"Squibs" are never seen anywhere besides controlled demolitions. If you can't provide an image or video of a "squib" that is not from a controlled demolition, then there's nothing more to debate on this subject.

That's not an entirely fair argument, because squibs may also be seen in events such as when a commercial airliner crashes at high speed into a skyscraper. It's just that it doesn't happen very often.


Eg - if I employ your logic in reverse I could ask you to show me an example of a building failure resulting from the high speed crash of a commercial airliner into it that did not result in squibs. By your logic if you can't do that then there's nothing more to debate.

Lets just say that we see those squibs in 287359 demolitions and we don't see them anywhere else. Then, based on scientific observation by several experts, the theory is that those squibs are linked with explosive demolition.

Because no one can present any expert sources thare are not from www.debunking911.com that show photgraphic AND video evidence (as triuthers have provided to support the squibs theory) that those squibs can happen in a situation similar to 9/11 but without explosives.

This is because no expert has been able support the theory that the squibs are not from explosives with photographic and video evidence.

I agree with BONEZ when he has the folowing view:
Expert testimony+scientific observation+photographic evidence+video evidence > expert testimony + scientific observation - photographic evidence - video evidence

reply to post by jthomas


it's impossible to prove that anyone lied about anything as I have shown time and time again.

The earth is flat.

Prove that statement is a lie. Better yet present one small bit of evidence that suggest that it MIGHT be a lie. I'll send 100 dollars to every single person who can do it. Not one person has been able to.

Originally posted by iamcpc
reply to post by jthomas

 

it's impossible to prove that anyone lied about anything as I have shown time and time again.

The earth is flat.

Prove that statement is a lie. Better yet present one small bit of evidence that suggest that it MIGHT be a lie. I'll send 100 dollars to every single person who can do it. Not one person has been able to.

You're way behind. As I've pointed out many times:

"A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed."

www.revisionism.nl...

Originally posted by iamcpc


This is because no expert has been able support the theory that the squibs are not from explosives with photographic and video evidence.

Yeah. Because there's a shortage of examples of planes flying at 500 mph into 100-storey buildings. And not many skyscrapers fall down on their own with cameras pointing at them. Yours is a specious and, strictly speaking, illogical argument.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yours is a specious and, strictly speaking, illogical argument.

It's not illogical. The planes had absolutely nothing to do with with the "squibs" at all. "Squbs", or ejection plumes, are caused by high-powered explosives being detonated. Numerous first responders, by-standers and survivors heard these explosions.

There's no denying the fact that the "squibs" are only ever seen in controlled demolitions. Nobody to this day has still been able to prove otherwise.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yours is a specious and, strictly speaking, illogical argument.

It's not illogical. The planes had absolutely nothing to do with with the "squibs" at all.

As we've seen, there is no evidence for "explosive squibs."

Originally posted by jthomas
As we've seen, there is no evidence for "explosive squibs."

I don't recall anyone saying "explosive squibs". You continue to play your word games and put words in other peoples' mouths.

There were ejections:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


Those ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and nobody has, to this day, shown otherwise. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish by arguing a topic that you can never win. So give it up.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
All you're doing is making yourself look foolish by arguing a topic that you can never win. So give it up.

Yes, we know that you have stated that you will never be convinced that they weren't brought down by explosives.

Why continue to demonstrate your closed mindedness?

If you really an honest researcher, you would say something more along the lines of, " I am thoroughly convinced that explosives were involved, and it would difficult for anyone to change my mind."

Ain't gonna happen, will it?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
As we've seen, there is no evidence for "explosive squibs."

I don't recall anyone saying "explosive squibs". You continue to play your word games and put words in other peoples' mouths.

There were ejections:

As we've seen, there is no evidence for "explosives ejections."



[edit on 23-5-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It's not illogical. The planes had absolutely nothing to do with with the "squibs" at all. "Squbs", or ejection plumes, are caused by high-powered explosives being detonated. Numerous first responders, by-standers and survivors heard these explosions.

There's no denying the fact that the "squibs" are only ever seen in controlled demolitions. Nobody to this day has still been able to prove otherwise.

Aside from the lack of evidence for explosives - which is not something I'm concerned with here - the argument is, in the most literal sense, illogical. Just because there is a preponderance of evidence of something occurring in a common event, does not mean it's only possible in that set of circumstances.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


All I see is a bunch of "blah blah blah" text all over the screen to explain away the facts, but nobody is trying to prove the ejections are not from explosives since we've only ever seen the ejections being from explosives.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

All I see is a bunch of "blah blah blah" text all over the screen to explain away the facts, but nobody is trying to prove the ejections are not from explosives since we've only ever seen the ejections being from explosives.

If you can show me video of a building hit by a plane at 450+mph that doesn't exhibit them in its collapse then you're onto something.

It's quite an easy point to understand. Just because you only see a certain occurrence in relation to one event doesn't mean you can't see it in relation to another, especially if the latter event is extremely rare. Or indeed previously unheard of.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
As we've seen, there is no evidence for "explosive squibs."

I don't recall anyone saying "explosive squibs". You continue to play your word games and put words in other peoples' mouths.

There were ejections:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


Those ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and nobody has, to this day, shown otherwise. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish by arguing a topic that you can never win. So give it up.

If those were from explosives how come there were no explosions? What type of explosives were used that could create those squibs but not be heard at all?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]

There's a noticeable difference between the "squibs" in the demolition picture and those at the WTC. In the top right the ejections are made by explosives that are beginning the controlled collapse. The tower hasn't actually started falling yet. But at the WTC the "squibs" are occurring well after the tower has begun to fall.

Surely they are not therefore explosives, since the detonations would presumably be required to initiate the collapse, as in the CD photo?

Originally posted by iamcpc

If those were from explosives how come there were no explosions? What type of explosives were used that could create those squibs but not be heard at all?

You're kidding, right?

He'll do what all truthers do. He'll lie and say that he hears hundreds of them going off in the videos, then shift the burden of proof and challenge you to prove him wrong......

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

If those were from explosives how come there were no explosions? What type of explosives were used that could create those squibs but not be heard at all?

You're kidding, right?

He'll do what all truthers do. He'll lie and say that he hears hundreds of them going off in the videos, then shift the burden of proof and challenge you to prove him wrong......

I'm not kidding. I don't hear explosions. I compare the WTC towers to demolitions.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I posted four videos of buildings collapsing. two sound like demolitions. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM and two you can't hear any explosions on at all.

If the squibs are from explosions where are the explosions? What type of explosives can make the BOOM from an explosion without the BOOM?

[edit on 25-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

If those were from explosives how come there were no explosions? What type of explosives were used that could create those squibs but not be heard at all?

You're kidding, right?

He'll do what all truthers do. He'll lie and say that he hears hundreds of them going off in the videos, then shift the burden of proof and challenge you to prove him wrong......

I'm not kidding. I don't hear explosions.

Nobody that's both sane and honest do.

But Bonez has stated that he hears hundreds going off during the collapses, and that's what produces the continuous roar during said collapses.

Of course there will be zero scientific analyses of the videos you gave. Just an assertion, then a challenge to you to prove him wrong.

Cool, isn't it, when one shifts the burden of proof like that.......

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by iamcpc

If those were from explosives how come there were no explosions? What type of explosives were used that could create those squibs but not be heard at all?

You're kidding, right?

He'll do what all truthers do. He'll lie and say that he hears hundreds of them going off in the videos, then shift the burden of proof and challenge you to prove him wrong......

I'm not kidding. I don't hear explosions.

Nobody that's both sane and honest do.

But Bonez has stated that he hears hundreds going off during the collapses, and that's what produces the continuous roar during said collapses.

Of course there will be zero scientific analyses of the videos you gave. Just an assertion, then a challenge to you to prove him wrong.

Cool, isn't it, when one shifts the burden of proof like that.......

I also noticed another difference.

Aside from the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM I notice that the building that went BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM didn't have a large, burning, airplane sized hole in the side of it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"Squbs", or ejection plumes, are caused by high-powered explosives being detonated. There's no denying the fact that the "squibs" are only ever seen in controlled demolitions. Nobody to this day has still been able to prove otherwise.

No, it's caused by air being forced out through a small opening, like this attic vent:

www.liveleak.com...

Oops.....

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Joey Canoli]