• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:823:852:1124:1449]

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
Lol... The explosives expert doesn't know how explosives work...
Click to expand...

I do. You on the other hand don't.

This much is obvious.

Try again.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
I have done that before, I explained, briefly how you are significantly wrong... I seriously don't have the hours to dedicate to explain the numerous facets of your wrongness.
Click to expand...

And your explanation was wrong. You can't/won't even acknowledge the very obvious fact that perimeter collapse followed core collapse. Not really sure how the conversation is supposed to continue if you can't grasp the basics.

It's bad enough that you are justifying the G with an explanation that is not valid when applied to the wtc collapse, but is also done in a way that shows that you do not even grasp the core concept that you are using in your explanation.
Click to expand...

No wonder you think I'm wrong. You just totally misrepresented my position.

Honestly, I'm not just hand waving it away, it's that if you understood the physics enough that you understood what you were saying, you would not make that argument because you would see just how wrong your application of physics is in the matter.

You can be as detailed as you want, but if you are so thoroughly wrong that I cannot even frame things in a way to make them right, because you show that you don't understand the subject to a degree that the correction will have meaning to you.
Click to expand...

If you are the one getting the physics right and I and everyone else who accepts the official story is wrong, how is it that your position has zero support among physicists and the structural engineering community at large and mine has overwhelming support among those same groups?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Mark F said:
And your explanation was wrong. You can't/won't even acknowledge the very obvious fact that perimeter collapse followed core collapse. Not really sure how the conversation is supposed to continue if you can't grasp the basics.
Click to expand...

Whether that's the case or not, is irrelevant to 8 floors of free fall...


No wonder you think I'm wrong. You just totally misrepresented my position.
Click to expand...

No, the movement you are describing would be obvious from other video angles demonstrating how it was just the "illision" of at and a few points beyond freefall.

Which I would explain the concept of margin for error, but you've shown you do not grasp the core concepts.

If you are the one getting the physics right and I and everyone else who accepts the official story is wrong, how is it that your position has zero support among physicists and the structural engineering community at large and mine has overwhelming support among those same groups?
Click to expand...

Yet all the physicists I might bring up, we'll, you get to dismiss them because they don't support nist.

That's the political motivation that prevents more engineers from speaking out.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Try again.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.
Click to expand...
What the "expert" om the matter doesn't want to school me on the subject of his expertise?? That's strange to say the least.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
What the "expert" om the matter doesn't want to school me on the subject of his expertise?? That's strange to say the least.
Click to expand...

Pathetic dodge noted. And laughed at.

And given my experience I will state you are completely ignorant on explosives and what they can or can't do. And I suspect nearly every other person with an explosives background thinks so as well.

But I am willing to give you another chance.

Try again. Convince me... All is will take is a reasoned and factual statement.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

NWO_Spook said:
Remember, you're dealing with 9/11 truth...
Click to expand...

Oh, I know.

Accusations sans evidence are their modus operandi.

And they have no shame in their varied and consistent libel.

And they lack the intellectual honesty to admit their fails.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Oh, I know.

Accusations sans evidence are their modus operandi.

And they have no shame in their varied and consistent libel.

And they lack the intellectual honesty to admit their fails.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you have to go a long way to find individuals that intellectually and morally deficient.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

NWO_Spook said:
Indeed, you have to go a long way to find individuals that intellectually and morally deficient.
Click to expand...

I REALLY don't think it is intentional malice in many cases..

I am sure many believe they are dong "God's work" and they are soldiers in a war against the NWO...

I met one such individual. A wonderful person in person. Salt of the Earth type guy.

We discussed world events vis a vis conspiracy theory. He was convinced that someone or something was manipulating world events. In some things I could point out the very real manipulators (Bush vs. Iraq by way of 9/11) and tried to dissuade him on the whole "illuminati runs the world" thing.

We agreed to disagree at the end and I love him like a brother.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Pathetic dodge noted. And laughed at.

And given my experience I will state you are completely ignorant on explosives and what they can or can't do. And I suspect nearly every other person with an explosives background thinks so as well.

But I am willing to give you another chance.

Try again. Convince me... All is will take is a reasoned and factual statement.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying so hard to not talk about your area of expertise ?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
Why are you trying so hard to not talk about your area of expertise ?
Click to expand...

And one more time.

Pathetic dodge noted. And laughed at.

And given my experience I will state you are completely ignorant on explosives and what they can or can't do. And I suspect nearly every other person with an explosives background thinks so as well.

But I am willing to give you another chance.

Try again. Convince me... All is will take is a reasoned and factual statement.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.

How?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
And one more time.

Pathetic dodge noted. And laughed at.

And given my experience I will state you are completely ignorant on explosives and what they can or can't do. And I suspect nearly every other person with an explosives background thinks so as well.

But I am willing to give you another chance.

Try again. Convince me... All is will take is a reasoned and factual statement.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.

How?
Click to expand...

What's to convince? Your the claimed expert.

Now, in the areas I have expertise in, not only do I enjoy talking about those topics, but I will make the point to bring up the topic whenever appropriate... I expected you would do the same.

I bet the reason for this is either because the word I used is not appropriate jargon and nothing more, or perhaps you have this as another in your long list of fabrications.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
What's to convince? Your the claimed expert.

Now, in the areas I have expertise in, not only do I enjoy talking about those topics, but I will make the point to bring up the topic whenever appropriate... I expected you would do the same.

I bet the reason for this is either because the word I used is not appropriate jargon and nothing more, or perhaps you have this as another in your long list of fabrications.
Click to expand...

And once again... Song and dance rather than answer the question.

And given my experience I will state, once again, you are completely ignorant on explosives and what they can or can't do. And I suspect nearly every other person with an explosives background thinks so as well.

But I am willing to give you another chance.

Try again. Convince me... All is will take is a reasoned and factual statement.

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.

How?

You appeared adamant in you instance something "evaporated 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously". How does explosives do this? How does thermite do this?

Have courage.
 
Last edited:
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
It is amusing. I can't accept that they actually believe this crap. They must lead very boring lives and are simply entertaining themselves.
Click to expand...

I actually find Bman to be one of the more rational truthers. He accepts the plane crashes, that puts him way above a lot of them.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Quag said:
I actually find Bman to be one of the more rational truthers. He accepts the plane crashes, that puts him way above a lot of them.
Click to expand...

Except when he doesn't...

If I am not mistaken he still finds holograms "Plausible"
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Except when he doesn't...

If I am not mistaken he still finds holograms "Plausible"
Click to expand...

No I am pretty sure he has rejected them, I could be wrong. He is open to the ridiculous idea of it not being the hijacked planes that crashed, but I'm certain he has rejected fuzzy balls.
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Quag said:
No I am pretty sure he has rejected them, I could be wrong. He is open to the ridiculous idea of it not being the hijacked planes that crashed, but I'm certain he has rejected fuzzy balls.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you reject fuzzy balls?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Wouldn't you reject fuzzy balls?
Click to expand...

Aint gonna touch that with a ten foot pole!
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Waiting....

How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously.
Click to expand...
How would explosives destroy 8 floors of the structure near instantly?

You are the claimed explosives expert, are you not?
 
re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
How would explosives destroy 8 floors of the structure near instantly?

You are the claimed explosives expert, are you not?
Click to expand...

You are not answering the question.

And in true TRUTHER fashion you attempt to run fro your original claim.

And, as someone experienced in explosives I can tell you the claim that explosives either "evaporated" OR "destroyed" the "8 floors worth of columns" or "8 floors of the structure" is pure comic book understanding of explosives and their use.

"How do EXPLOSIVES evaporate 8 floors worth of columns simultaneously?" is the question posed to YOU. Why would I answer it? It is a stupid claim.

"How would explosives destroy 8 floors of the structure near instantly? " In the case of WTC7 is another stupid claim. Why would I answer it? it is not my contention it happened. It is YOUR fantasy.

I suppose if we use a large enough amount of proper explosives, or a nuke, we could conceivably destroy "8 floors of the structure near instantly". The problem is that EVERYONE within MILES would know it was explosives at this point. I reckon the number of people killed by windows would be in the thousands given the close proximity of high rise buildings in the area.

REAL CDs have earsplitting audio signatures and they don't "destroy 8 floors of the structure near instantly".

Do you have ANY CLUE what an explosion of this magnitude would be like?

You really don't think this **** through, do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom