Explosive News

Originally posted by seethelight
This an incredibly bogus response.

So one side of the truther movement says all the steel beams we're sold to China... the other side says all the steel was pulverised....

Two sentences in and already you've both appealed to sensationalist language and then outright mis-characterized and distorted my post.

I don't know why we even bother responding to you.

reply to post by seethelight



www.youtube.com...

Hmmmm, what were you saying?

reply to post by bsbray11


Uhh.. you don't.

You certainly whine about me, but you don't answer questions.

reply to post by 11Indigo11


That's is absolutely nothing like what a demo is like.

What he says is, "you hear secondary explosions going off every 15-20 minutes".

A demo is multiple explosions happening quickly. Watch this:



Does ANYTHING in that video you posted come close to looking or sounding like this?

Does ANYONE describe ANYTHING like this?

No.

I've already posted multiple links of people claiming that all sorts of things sound like explosions.

Google "sounded like an explosion" and the majoity of non-truther stuff will be people talking about car accident.

Saying that people heard something that sounded like an explosion every 15-20 mins couldn't be FURTHER from what a controlled demo is like.

Watch the video, then watch yours (I just did) and you'll see there's NOTHING in the "total proof" video remotely close to whats in the ACTUAL demo video.

Demoing the WTC would've taken hundreds of explosives, but they would've happened in a few minutes, total.

Again, watch the demo video.

The last thing I'll say before I go to bed is this.

That landmark building was what, 30-40 stories and the entire demo from the beginning to the end took less than 1 min.

There were no secondary explosions going off hours later.

There's just NOTHING about that video you posted that proves OR EVEN SUGGESTS a controlled demolition.

reply to post by seethelight


You guys still haven't responded to this.

Originally posted by seethelight
Uhh.. you don't.

You certainly whine about me, but you don't answer questions.

There was nothing relevant to what I posted in your response whatsoever. The closest you came to responding to my post was literally mis-characterizing it completely.

You don't know how to stay on a single topic and provide relevant responses. You don't have any technical credentials here from what I've seen. And you have no clue what you're talking about. You argue for the sake of arguing. You are a troll.


You asked for evidence that the steel was 'blown to smithereens' or whatever the phrase used was.

So I posted it. This is it:

In the trade-center air samples, Cahill identified four classes of particles that have been named by the EPA as likely to harm human health:

* Fine and very fine transition metals, which interfere with lung chemistry.
* Acids, in this case sulfuric acid, which attack cilia and lung cells directly.
* Very fine, un-dissolvable (insoluble) particles, in this case glass, which travel through the lungs to the bloodstream and heart.
* High-temperature organic matter, many components of which are known to be carcinogens.

"For each of these four classes of pollutant, we recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China," Cahill said.

delta.ucdavis.edu...



Did I get a relevant response? No.


Instead I got, "Ohhh twoofers say it was sent to China, ohh twoofers say it was destroyed, ohh I am sooo confused!" And then a million irrelevant questions typical of someone who has no response to what was actually posted, only a lot of mangled nonsense floating around in their head that is completely unrelated.


If you can pay attention enough to look at the information I provided above maybe you can manage to then pay attention long enough to formulate a relevant response. But I really doubt that is going to happen.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


By the way, I didn't "mischaracterize your post". You used completely narrow test results to justify a very broad statement. It's dishonest.

You can't justify his statement that the steel of the WTC, "smash[ed] into smitherines", by showing that they found lots of dust containing metal at ground zero.

Duh.

2x 100 Storey steel buildings collapsed. They were wound to find steel dust.

That is not the same thing as same the steel from the WTC was smashed into smithereens.

Pretending that me making a distinction between the two is a mischaracterisation is a simply a big "waaaaah".

Has a OSer ever said, "there was no steel dust at ground zero"?

Why would they?

I wouldn't.

That's a false and dishonest argument.

reply to post by bsbray11


That's not what he said. Go read what he said.

Anyway, I responded to your whole post at length.

reply to post by bsbray11


By the way, of those, "one million irrelevant questions" how many have you stooped down from your throne to answer with your all-knowing super-wisdom?

uhhhh...

none.

Those questions aren't irrelevant.

You just don't have any answers.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by 11Indigo11

 

That's is absolutely nothing like what a demo is like.

What he says is, "you hear secondary explosions going off every 15-20 minutes".

A demo is multiple explosions happening quickly. Watch this:

Considering it is common knowledge that military technology is at least a decade ahead of anything the public knows about and this is not including above top secret level items I have to ask the following.

Is it possible at all that there were demolitions pulled off in a manner not at all traditional in 2001? Is that at least possible?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson


Is it possible at all that there were demolitions pulled off in a manner not at all traditional in 2001? Is that at least possible?

Of course it is, Military explosives used for this .
Back in the Northwoods Era , early 60's , they planned to use remote controlled planes. That was 50 years ago. We have no idea what secrets a
Trillion Dollar Black Budget can conceive.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


This is a nonsense argument on many levels.

When you don't have an answer you simply make up unverified and, as far as you know, non-existant weapons, to justify your faith.

We truthers only want the facts... we're investigating... and when we can't make the facts fit, we make # up.

Yeah man, you can't say it was a demo cause there COULD POSSIBLY be some technology that will destroy two hundred buildings in a way that no one notices.

In addition to that, a chunk of you completely disagree and think it was a controlled demolition in which the secret government experts set off bombs every 20 mins, for hours.

Of course its possible Gunderson!!

Seethelight appears to be in the dark about lots of things 9/11 related....

A few posts back someone posted a video of multiple explosions being either reported or caught on camera...proof.

reply to post by Sean48


Sure buddy... and you're proof of this?

That military explosives were used...

Show me that proof?

Oh, right, no proof, just faith.

reply to post by benoni


A demo of 100 story buildings would've taken hundreds of explosions, in the space of a few minutes.

That video didn't show anything vaguely like that.

You guys are WILDLY misinformed about what demos look and sound like.

I've posted videos, you don't watch them.

I watch your videos.

Scared of a little truth?

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

This is a nonsense argument on many levels.

It is not an argument at all. It is not an argument on any level. It is a question. You can answer elaborately or simply yes, no, or I do not know. I am sorry if you are new to English but I simply asked you a question. I did not present any argument at all. I would love to know what some of those levels are, considering...

Anyway, you can answer me or ignore me. Hand waving avoidance will be treated as such. If you are here, you must be here for the truth. If you are looking for the truth, you must care somewhat about the answer to that question even for your own sake.

If you need any more help understanding what a question is, feel free to U2U me.

reply to post by seethelight


You only posted videos of traditional demolitions. This is a fallacy on its face since even a demo of these buildings would have been unconventional by nature as it would have been a first still. This is why I asked you if you feel it is at least possible that some non-traditional method of taking buildings down existed in 2001.

And still no one answers any of my very relevant questions...

Hey Matlocks, get on google and youtube and dredge up some answers.

Better yet, use REAL sources.

How about a documentary that isn't titled in the Chiller font?



Believe me now?

Originally posted by seethelight
By the way, I didn't "mischaracterize your post". You used completely narrow test results to justify a very broad statement. It's dishonest.

Uh huh. "Narrow test results." Some authority here telling me this.

You can't justify his statement that the steel of the WTC, "smash[ed] into smitherines", by showing that they found lots of dust containing metal at ground zero.

Actually that's exactly what it proves. Look up the definition of "smithereens." It's defined as simply very small pieces. NO ONE HERE HAS SAID EVERY PIECE OF STEEL WAS TURNED TO DUST. So maybe that clears up your ignorant confusion as to how some could be shipped to China and other steel COULD be turned into dust particles. The amount that was turned to dust was not quantified yet it was consistently found in all their samples.

Duh.

Come on, man. On top of all the idiotic stuff you post, then you post "duh," you're making me feel like I'm arguing with an elementary schooler. Really, really wasting my time. I wouldn't respond to you at all if you didn't have the misfortune of being the only person here incessantly arguing with the obvious and being so bad at it. Spare me the grade-school vernacular.

2x 100 Storey steel buildings collapsed. They were wound to find steel dust.

That is not the same thing as same the steel from the WTC was smashed into smithereens.

When you are responding to me, don't worry about what other posters said, or what you "think" all "truthers" would say. Because I didn't say what they said and I'm not always going to, believe it or not. Usually this kind of stuff goes without saying but I can see you're having a lot of trouble comprehending why this might be important to remember.

Has a OSer ever said, "there was no steel dust at ground zero"?

There was you on the last page just arguing that steel was not turned to "smithereens." Maybe you should be clearer about what you're objecting to next time.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by bsbray11]