explosives or mini nukes Jones vs. Prager who is right?

[Menard_K]

Wow your really gonna go with that?
largest terrorist attack in history and you really believe it should have been treated as a possible arson case by local fire dept?
But then truthers would have complained if the FDNY did the investigation and it wasn't the feds. There is no pleasing truthers they see anything as proof of CT.

This is NOT a matter of seeing "anything" as prof of a conspiracy.
its a matter of looking at the evidence..... Note that it is a feature of FIRE CODE
that any COMPLETELY destroyed anything is considered VERY SUSPICIOUS.
the damage from an alleged aircraft crash is no guarantee of total collapse.
the fact is that total collapse is the most unlikely scenario.

 

[Quag]

Wow, izat heavy or what? faking flights... can't be done ..... oh my, you are limiting yourself,

Think outside the box ..... be FREE!

I have shown you just a small part of what would be involved and how incredibly hard that would be.
Forget the box just think!

 

[Quag]

This is NOT a matter of seeing "anything" as prof of a conspiracy.
its a matter of looking at the evidence..... Note that it is a feature of FIRE CODE
that any COMPLETELY destroyed anything is considered VERY SUSPICIOUS.
the damage from an alleged aircraft crash is no guarantee of total collapse.
the fact is that total collapse is the most unlikely scenario.

Yes and passenger planes flying into buildings is not gonna set off any alarm bells?
Seriously truthers will grasp at anything no matter how inane if they think they can link it to their pet CT

 

[Menard_K]

Yes and passenger planes flying into buildings is not gonna set off any alarm bells?
Seriously truthers will grasp at anything no matter how inane if they think they can link it to their pet CT

So, let me get this straight, you believe that an airliner crashing into a skyscraper
is 100% certain to completely destroy said skyscraper...... izat it?

 

[Quag]

So, let me get this straight, you believe that an airliner crashing into a skyscraper
is 100% certain to completely destroy said skyscraper...... izat it?

No I am saying that on 911 that is what happened it may not be the result every time but it was on 911.

 

[Menard_K]

No I am saying that on 911 that is what happened it may not be the result every time but it was on 911.

9/11/2001 being a special case, however in police investigations,
"special cases" are the result of human intervention, that is prior planning on the part
of somebody who intended for the towers & WTC7 to be destroyed.

 

[Quag]

9/11/2001 being a special case, however in police investigations,
"special cases" are the result of human intervention, that is prior planning on the part
of somebody who intended for the towers & WTC7 to be destroyed.

Nonsense

 

[Goshin]

Fairly sure it was a couple of jet airliners.

 

[Menard_K]

Fairly sure it was a couple of jet airliners.

So you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that
hijacked airliners were flown into the twin towers and
that resulted in the complete & total destruction of
both towers.? izat it?

 

[mike2810]

So you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that
hijacked airliners were flown into the twin towers and
that resulted in the complete & total destruction of
both towers.? izat it?

This tread is about Jones refuting Pragers mini nukes stance.
It is not about hijacked aircraft.
Take your trolling elsewere, please.

 

[Menard_K]

This tread is about Jones refuting Pragers mini nukes stance.
It is not about hijacked aircraft.
Take your trolling elsewere, please.

So kvetch at me about it already
Goshin mentioned the jetliners.....

 

[Quag]

This tread is about Jones refuting Pragers mini nukes stance.
It is not about hijacked aircraft.
Take your trolling elsewere, please.

It's irrelevant all Cters link everything together we are after all being controlled by the space vampires through the illuminati.

 

[Menard_K]

It's irrelevant all Cters link everything together we are after all being controlled by the space vampires through the illuminati.

First of all, people need to see that an additional source of energy had to have been involved
in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 THEN, we can look for the details like exactly what was used.

 

[Quag]

First of all, people need to see that an additional source of energy had to have been involved
in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 THEN, we can look for the details like exactly what was used.

Nonsense again

 

[mike2810]

9/11/2001 being a special case, however in police investigations,
"special cases" are the result of human intervention, that is prior planning on the part
of somebody who intended for the towers & WTC7 to be destroyed.

you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of emegency and law enforcement procedures and jurisdictions.

 

[SanderO]

First of all, people need to see that an additional source of energy had to have been involved
in the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 THEN, we can look for the details like exactly what was used.

Unsupported assertion.

What you are confusing is the SCALE of the energy input... in the twins it was the mechanical damage of the planes and the fires STARTED by the fuel... but carried on by the contents and the the PE of gravity was released.

In 7wtc fires seemed to do it.

You do understand that steel requires fire protection and unprotected steel in the presence of normal fires will weaken and lose considerable strength. Truthers refuse to consider how much this might be... dismissing the fires as minimal. WRONG. Burning of the contents provided the energy, if you will to weaken the frame to released the stored gravity PE.

 

[Menard_K]

Unsupported assertion.

What you are confusing is the SCALE of the energy input... in the twins it was the mechanical damage of the planes and the fires STARTED by the fuel... but carried on by the contents and the the PE of gravity was released.

In 7wtc fires seemed to do it.

You do understand that steel requires fire protection and unprotected steel in the presence of normal fires will weaken and lose considerable strength. Truthers refuse to consider how much this might be... dismissing the fires as minimal. WRONG. Burning of the contents provided the energy, if you will to weaken the frame to released the stored gravity PE.

and so, in response to chaotic damage, tens of thousands of welds & bolts failed exactly on Q
izat it?

 

[mike2810]

and so, in response to chaotic damage, tens of thousands of welds & bolts failed exactly on Q
izat it?

question.
would not an explosion cause chaotic damage?

 

[ozeco41]

and so, in response to chaotic damage, tens of thousands of welds & bolts failed exactly on Q
izat it?

No. whatever part your "chaotic damage" may have played the failure of "tens of thousands of welds & bolts...exactly on Q":
1) Was a consequnece of the actual collapse mechnaism whch took place; AND
2) Is historic fact - specifically the "on Q" is fact.

Your foggy thinking shows once again.

Clarity is the fact of history that the collapse mechanism occurred AND the only legitimate claim in the context of and bounded by that fact of history is "was there or was there not CD/OHMI"

 

[ozeco41]

question.
would not an explosion cause chaotic damage?

Yes...but:
1) There was no explosion so the issue is moot; AND
2) "chaotic damage" is not the issue relevant to M_K's silly claim.

To be more specific the mooted explosion causing chaotic damage could not conceivably directly cause the "tens of thousands of welds & bolts" to fail. They did fail and did so as a result of the collapse mechanism.

M_K could possible have a point he is trying to make. If he has a point he sure isn't making it. And there is no benefit in us trying to read his mind.

 

[SanderO]

and so, in response to chaotic damage, tens of thousands of welds & bolts failed exactly on Q
izat it?

They failed when stresses exceeded their capacity and it was not on cue or in any sequence... it was a 4 D event... L x W x H x T
(H being some vertical level in the building's height, T being the time within the interval of destruction from static to completely disintegrated)

 

[Quag]

They failed when stresses exceeded their capacity and it was not on cue or in any sequence... it was a 4 D event... L x W x H x T
(H being some vertical level in the building's height, T being the time within the interval of destruction from static to completely disintegrated)

I like how you define the H and T for the truthers. It is obvious but then the obvious tends to elude them.

 

[Thoreau72]

question.
would not an explosion cause chaotic damage?

That depends upon a number of factors, including how well "the explosion(s)" is planned. Consider Controlled Demolition for example.

They are very well planned, and the result is not chaos, but a precise chain of events that leave a structure in a relatively neat pile.

Think of the Kingdome in Seattle.