Sincere help for 9/11 debunkers

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


So what exactly do you believe can "pulverize" 3 steel/concrete towers weighting 1200 ton? (and what if I assert that it can't, would you swallow that?)


First ,its not 1200tons.. ITS 1,200,000TONS OF MILD STEEL/REINFORCED CONCRETE.


It would have to be a steel dense object or re-concrete(not aluminum obviuosly), charges (explosives) or nuclear. If you have time and money build a steel high rise and try any of the three or send a 767 (again) and see what happens.

In regards to weight , it depends how quickly you want to pulverize(SORRY DESTROY) it. If its a demo wrecking ball(lol) you'll need some massive balls. If Its explosives(nuclear or charges or whatever) you'll accomplish the demo in one quick swoop(especially when the economic/safety factor isnt necssary). If its a plane(s) , it would need to impact the lower floors of the tower... TIMBER!


Get it?


Your question is a gotcha question. Pointless and irrelevant; Unless your planning on doing a sound study. Oh ,, I forgot NIST did that already.


Honestly ,try debunking my signature without desperately derailing it. Meaning don't answer with a question.

And if you are going to "assert it can't". You better back it up. FYI,,,Posting some article is not backing it up. I can do the same and will end up staging a pissing match. Which is probably your intentions. At the end of the day you're incapable of debunking my simple signature.

Carry on commoner




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by soulwaxer


The views of many truthers also came from real people who were there and witnessed the events. You're not seriously going to deny that are you?


Really? Can you list them? Where are the truthers?

Flight 93 - I know of not a single person that was at the Shanksville crash sight that does not believe Flight 93 crashed there.

Flight 77 - Not a single witness to the crash has come forward and stated that flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon. As far as I know, only April Gallop is a truther that was at the Pentagon.

Flights 11 and 175 - One FDNY firefighter is a truther - his name escapes me. There was also that other guy "McPadden" who heard the "countdown" on the Red Cross radio.

Perhaps you know of some people that were there and believe that the collapses of 1,2 and 7 were controlled demolitions?






Many have done what you are requesting, endlessly. Why should I repeat all of that for you in a thread that is about a whole different matter. I'd prefer to stay on topic. If you like, you can start your own thread about all the details.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

You're dumb,deaf and blind because you ignore your own logical interpretation on what happened on 911. You,,rather accept someone else's assessment because they are certified professionals. Get it?

You don't want to think for yourself , you let other do that for you. Get it?

Perfect example is you posting material from Blanchard. You don't even know the dude. But you googled the jackass and it benefited your agenda. Get it?

And yes ,if you learn high-rise construction it will ALL become clear to you. Get it?


You're welcome . Now copy 'n paste my signature to Blanchard and ask him to debunk it.


Its obvious you can't.


Carry on

It's possible that you might also be "deaf dumb". In order to investigate this, do the following:

Look up the Dunning–Kruger effect (since you imply that you have "learned high-rise construction".

Then learn something about the Overconfidence effect.

Next, study up on what a Credible witness is (e.g., FDNY fire officers).

Finally get some feedback on your signature (which you keep referring to) from people who are unbiased and reasonably intelligent and see if my hunch is correct that they will also find it sophomoric, meaningless, and totally irrelevant.
edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



Thanks teach. Any idea how a 392ton piece(2) of Aluminum(including petrol) can destroy or pulverize 1,200,000tons of Mild Steel/Reinforced Concrete, all on one day.???

And I'm afraid Wiki can help you with this one.

IS IT GOOD 'OL FIRE???


So how is my signature meaningless?

You do understand the weight of the 2 planes (392tons) is a FACT. The weight of WTC 1&2 ,7 (1,200,000tons) is a FACT. The pancake theory isn't a fact. So why would my signature be considered "lack of judgment".


This time tell me.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

You're dumb,deaf and blind because you ignore your own logical interpretation on what happened on 911. You,,rather accept someone else's assessment because they are certified professionals. Get it?

You don't want to think for yourself , you let other do that for you. Get it?

Perfect example is you posting material from Blanchard. You don't even know the dude. But you googled the jackass and it benefited your agenda. Get it?

And yes ,if you learn high-rise construction it will ALL become clear to you. Get it?


You're welcome . Now copy 'n paste my signature to Blanchard and ask him to debunk it.


Its obvious you can't.


Carry on

It's possible that you might also be "deaf dumb". In order to investigate this, do the following:

Look up the Dunning–Kruger effect (since you imply that you have "learned high-rise construction".

Then learn something about the Overconfidence effect.

Next, study up on what a Credible witness is (e.g., FDNY fire officers).

Finally get some feedback on your signature (which you keep referring to) from people who are unbiased and reasonably intelligent and see if my hunch is correct that they will also find it sophomoric, meaningless, and totally irrelevant.
edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Study up on what a credible witness is? Are you serious?


That's like saying "Study up on what an honest person is." When you are interested in starting a relationship with someone, do you hit the books first, just to be sure that you can trust that person? I prefer to base my judgement on my own experience.

Oh man, some of you sound like you have already sold your soul.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Flight 93 - I know of not a single person that was at the Shanksville crash sight that does not believe Flight 93 crashed there.




Thank you for taking the time to post that.

Do you see that Six Sigma? There is more of that, but maybe it would be a better idea for you to look for it yourself, no? Just this one witness video alone should tell you that you are not up to speed.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Originally posted by soulwaxer

You think that fire officials predicted the collapse based on their personal assessment of the damage? While NIST and so many others couldn't decide on what caused the collapse, after years of analyzing all the data??

Sorry, my fault for taking their own testimonies seriously.

1) Fire Chief Frank Fellini: "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. ... We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down." (Interview, 12/3/2001)

2) Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." (Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

Daniel Nigro (in another account): "I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely." (Interview, 10/24/2001)

3) Fire Chief Frank Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area ... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it." (Interview, 10/31/2001)

Frank Cruthers (in another account): "Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been comprised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy." (Frank Cruthers, "Postcollapse Command," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

4) Fire Captain Ray Goldbach: "There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. ... Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way." (Interview, 10/24/2001)


edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't say it's your fault that you take all of that seriously. But you ARE responsible for consequences of doing so.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


So what exactly do you believe can "pulverize" 3 steel/concrete towers weighting 1200 ton? (and what if I assert that it can't, would you swallow that?)


First ,its not 1200tons.. ITS 1,200,000TONS OF MILD STEEL/REINFORCED CONCRETE.


It would have to be a steel dense object or re-concrete(not aluminum obviuosly), charges (explosives) or nuclear. If you have time and money build a steel high rise and try any of the three or send a 767 (again) and see what happens.

In regards to weight , it depends how quickly you want to pulverize(SORRY DESTROY) it. If its a demo wrecking ball(lol) you'll need some massive balls. If Its explosives(nuclear or charges or whatever) you'll accomplish the demo in one quick swoop(especially when the economic/safety factor isnt necssary). If its a plane(s) , it would need to impact the lower floors of the tower... TIMBER!


Get it?


Your question is a gotcha question. Pointless and irrelevant; Unless your planning on doing a sound study. Oh ,, I forgot NIST did that already.


Honestly ,try debunking my signature without desperately derailing it. Meaning don't answer with a question.

And if you are going to "assert it can't". You better back it up. FYI,,,Posting some article is not backing it up. I can do the same and will end up staging a pissing match. Which is probably your intentions. At the end of the day you're incapable of debunking my simple signature.

Carry on commoner







So let me get this straight, you think explosives pulverized the WTC buildings? Care to share how many explosives were required? Or do you in fact mean to say destroy? You are not very clear you know.

As for me backing up my assertion that it can't, no way. That is not how burden of proof works. You are claiming it can. Its your job to back up your claims. If you don't care to do that, I don't care either. In fact, almost nobody cares about this whole 911 truth thing. The only people who care just a little are us "OSers". And this topic is about how crazy we are.

Anyway, I fail to see why your sig needs debunking. Its a baseless assertion to begin with. It is funny how you demand that I need to back an assertion up, but you don't. Yours is valid by default and can only been shown wrong when it is debunked. Excuse me for finding that comical.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer

I wouldn't say it's your fault that you take all of that seriously. But you ARE responsible for consequences of doing so.

I noticed you still haven't addressed the question here. Since you claim to have "eyes that see", what do you see in those testimonies? Were they just mistaken? Those fire officers have eyes that see--except, unlike yours--they had the benefit of seeing WTC7 in person and up close, inside and out. They weren't watching some distant, low quality, video footage. And, unlike your eyes, theirs are informed by years of training and experience.

So how do you account for those testimonies? Were they fools who got lucky? Were they simply ignorant of the fact that, regardless of the structural damage they witnessed, they should have had NO concern over the possibility of WTC7 collapsing since no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire? Lucky for them. Their ignorance saved their lives.

Or--did Men in Black come along and erase their memories, replacing them with new ones?

Or were they simply lying? Did they get paid to cover-up the murder of their friends and colleagues?

Enlighten us, seer. I'm deaf dumb and blind due to trauma and cognitive dissonance, which prevents my ego from collapsing at free-fall speed.

edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Whatever word you want to use. Destroy or Pulverize . Pick your poison sunny boy.


Ok so you don't have a clue what you are talking about. That is ok.


Who cares how many explosives were involved. Do you? Are you planning on destroying/demo/pulverize the Sears Tower? What does it prove if I give you an exact # of explosives(or weight). Your point?


Then we can compare it to a video of an explosion or building demolition with a similar amount of explosives, and see if your theory holds any water. People who care about such details are people who care about the truth.



I really have no idea how much explosives were used. Understand, the demolition industry always takes into account the economic/safety impact. Which in 911's case there was neither. So estimating the # of charges or explosives or both , is desperate. Which you are...


Of course you don't have a clue as you have no idea what you are talking about. All while I am really desperate when I ask about the very basics of your theory. I think the only person fooled here is you. And the ironic thing is that the one who is fooling you is yourself.



My signature is factual!! When something is factual ,it doesn't need any backing. Debunk the facts!

Prove somehow a weaker material(object A ),that's 0.03% in size -when- compared to the stronger material(object B).

392tons(0.03%) demolished 1,200,000tons(100%)

Look at those #'s . Just think how stupid you OSers are.





So you think more than 392 tons of explosives were used? Or does this truther law of physics only count for planes?
edit on 25-6-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Personal attacks won't change the fact that as soon as I click on the little cross in the upper right corner of my screen, 911 truth disappears entirely. But have fun believing otherwise.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Personal attacks won't change the fact that as soon as I click on the little cross in the upper right corner of my screen, 911 truth disappears entirely. But have fun believing otherwise.

Yes, it disappears until you can't help yourself from coming back day after day, week after week, year after year, imagining that you are "debunking" this insignificant 911 truth movement that nobody cares about.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

My signature is factual!! When something is factual ,it doesn't need any backing. Debunk the facts!

Prove somehow a weaker material(object A ),that's 0.03% in size -when- compared to the stronger material(object B).

392tons(0.03%) demolished 1,200,000tons(100%)

Look at those #'s . Just think how stupid you OSers are.

Your signature is nonsense. "2 ALUMINUM JETLINERS WEIGHING 392TONS(fuel included) CANNOT PULVERIZE 3 STEEL/CONCRETE TOWERS WEIGHING 1 200 000TONS...swallow that OSers".

Find me ONE published "OSer" researcher who has claimed this or implied this.

The mass of one tower was approx. 253,000 metric tons. Meaning at 110 stories, each tower comprised roughly 400 billion joules of potential energy. *

That's from gravity.

Seems like you sort of left out a liitle bit of pulverizing energy from your equation.


* Hamburger, R., et al., (May 2002) “World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2: WTC1 and WTC2.” FEMA 403
http:/www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
edit on 25-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


How much did the buildings weigh ABOVE the impact zones? Because that weight contributed to the demise of the Towers as well.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by GiodanoBruno
 


How much did the buildings weigh ABOVE the impact zones? Because that weight contributed to the demise of the Towers as well.


Answer without question???





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join