• 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.
ballantine said:
Same pattern, right? Constantly begging for "sources" they can ridicule, then when you go through all the trouble of providing them they're not even looked at. There's no need to name names, we can all see the patterns. I just end up putting 'em on ignore, they're not worth the trouble.

Interesting there should be so many in one place though. That stuff's usually reserved for the Kennedy forums. 9/11 must be getting important. lol ;)
Click to expand...

Mr. "I want to make a claim and refuse to give citation" has spoken.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

The noise you can hear in the background is Sir Isaac Newton spinning in his grave.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

deleted, not worth the bother. Scott never answers in his own words.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

When are we going to see some evidence about explosives?
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
When are we going to see some evidence about explosives?
Click to expand...
Look in post #9 on page #1.

Also, look at post #1423 on page #143.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Scott said:
Look in post #9 on page #1.

Also, look at post #1423 on page #143.
Click to expand...

I said evidence. Not truther YouTube videos.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
I said evidence. Not truther YouTube videos.
Click to expand...
You're really making the viewers think your view reflects reality with your tactics. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall, they'd throw you out.

The info in post #1423 on page #143 is not a video. Let's hear you address the info.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Fledermaus said:
Links to forum are being ignored.

If you have a.point, make it.
Click to expand...

So I'm supposed to take the time to summarize or copy and paste something you can just read because you refuse to read it. You're behaving like a checkmated sophist. You've lost this debate so you're trying to bury the part of the debate in which you lost. If all the truthers suddenly left this forum, you and your friends would do a few pages of posting to bury the stuff you couldn't deal with and start doing the victory dance.

That analysis of building seven blows you out of the water. The info in the videos you refuse to watch blows you out of the water. You have lost this debate. You look totally silly right now.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Scott said:
So I'm supposed to take the time to summarize or copy and paste something you can just read because you refuse to read it. You're behaving like a checkmated sophist. You've lost this debate so you're trying to bury the part of the debate in which you lost. If all the truthers suddenly left this forum, you and your friends would do a few pages of posting to bury the stuff you couldn't deal with and start doing the victory dance.

That analysis of building seven blows you out of the water. The info in the videos you refuse to watch blows you out of the water. You have lost this debate. You look totally silly right now.
Click to expand...

Speaking of silly.

Spending more time telling me you won't make your point than you would have taken to make your point.

So, you have no point. Got it.

You cant think beyond some video and lack the ability to write your thoughts in a cogent and logical manner.

Got it.

No wonder Bob likes.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

zyzygy said:
When are we going to see some evidence about explosives?
Click to expand...
As soon as some open their eyes and look at what's already been put forward.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Scott said:
So I'm supposed to take the time to summarize or copy and paste something you can just read because you refuse to read it. You're behaving like a checkmated sophist. You've lost this debate so you're trying to bury the part of the debate in which you lost. If all the truthers suddenly left this forum, you and your friends would do a few pages of posting to bury the stuff you couldn't deal with and start doing the victory dance.

That analysis of building seven blows you out of the water. The info in the videos you refuse to watch blows you out of the water. You have lost this debate. You look totally silly right now.
Click to expand...
It really is joke level.

Put in your own words -> "provide sources."

Provide sources -> "that source doesn't count"

"You're not looking at sources" -> "say it in your own words"

How this tactics does not fall under the definition of troll tactics in the forum rules escapes me.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
It really is joke level.

Put in your own words -> "provide sources."

Provide sources -> "that source doesn't count"

"You're not looking at sources" -> "say it in your own words"

How this tactics does not fall under the definition of troll tactics in the forum rules escapes me.
Click to expand...

Elvis is still alive.

Don't believe me?

Google it.

The Hale-Bopp comet was a transport device.

Don't believe me?

Google it.....

CT level of sourcing.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
Shifting the goal posts failed, with this new framing. Yes, if the air fuel mixture gets closer to the ideal, then you could get higher temperatures. The amount of smoke emanating from the towers betrays that possibility though.

You need to make your point, or explain how the forge analogy relates to the conditions in the towers.
Click to expand...

The inner part of the tower where the main supports are is an enclosed environment. More heat will be absorbed as more fuel is burned.

The forge example is to demonstrate the falsehood of pointing at temperature numbers on wikipedia and declaring it's impossible for jet fuel fires to get that hot. Coal and wood can get that hot, under the right circumstances. And no, it doesn't require a forge and bellows. Merely being in an enclosed space will reduce heat transfer to the outside and therefore increase temperatures.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
How this tactics does not fall under the definition of troll tactics in the forum rules escapes me.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

The broader point though, is that the government lies are laughable.

We got a bunch of idiots trying to "defend" the government's ridiculous bullsh*t stories, when the whole wide world is laughing at 'em.

Anyone with even a single brain cell will realize immediately how full of sh*t this government is, when it comes to their "official" stories.

And by extension, the people who try to "defend" those laughable official stories.

Such people deserve worse than ridicule, they deserve outright marginalization. They bring nothing useful to the table, all they do is clutter up valuable bandwidth with inane repetitions of the hapless government bullsh*t.

I'm not doing any work for such people. They can ask for "sources" all they want, they're not gonna get any from me. Nah man, let's talk first, and let's see if you know anything or if you're just blowing smoke like all the other replicants out there. The endless quest for "sources" is a sure sign that you don't know anything, and I'm not here to educate you. I'm looking for a worthy debate adversary, not a goddamn protégé.

Screw these government shills. They don't know anything anyway. They're not interested in conspiracies, they're just here to annoy people. And homey don't play. Straight to the ignore list, is where such people go.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

ballantine said:
Absolutely.

The broader point though, is that the government lies are laughable.

We got a bunch of idiots trying to "defend" the government's ridiculous bullsh*t stories, when the whole wide world is laughing at 'em.

Anyone with even a single brain cell will realize immediately how full of sh*t this government is, when it comes to their "official" stories.

And by extension, the people who try to "defend" those laughable official stories.

Such people deserve worse than ridicule, they deserve outright marginalization. They bring nothing useful to the table, all they do is clutter up valuable bandwidth with inane repetitions of the hapless government bullsh*t.

I'm not doing any work for such people. They can ask for "sources" all they want, they're not gonna get any from me. Nah man, let's talk first, and let's see if you know anything or if you're just blowing smoke like all the other replicants out there. The endless quest for "sources" is a sure sign that you don't know anything, and I'm not here to educate you. I'm looking for a worthy debate adversary, not a goddamn protégé.

Screw these government shills. They don't know anything anyway. They're not interested in conspiracies, they're just here to annoy people. And homey don't play. Straight to the ignore list, is where such people go.
Click to expand...

Little more than insults and blathering .
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Deuce said:
The inner part of the tower where the main supports are is an enclosed environment. More heat will be absorbed as more fuel is burned.

The forge example is to demonstrate the falsehood of pointing at temperature numbers on wikipedia and declaring it's impossible for jet fuel fires to get that hot. Coal and wood can get that hot, under the right circumstances. And no, it doesn't require a forge and bellows. Merely being in an enclosed space will reduce heat transfer to the outside and therefore increase temperatures.
Click to expand...

Enclosed environment -> less oxygen -> lower temps.

Dark smoke -> high soot -> low oxygen

plus, the jet fuel was gone within 10 minutes...

So, it was just desks, papers and computers... then about 6-8 ft to the ceiling.

As I said, your analogy does not work and the visible facts betray that position... thanks for trying, better luck next time.
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
thanks for trying, better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Ha ha - I would rephrase that ever-so-slightly: "screw you for even trying, but you're welcome to try again if you feel you need to be put down a little harder"... :lamo
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

BmanMcfly said:
Enclosed environment -> less oxygen -> lower temps.

Dark smoke -> high soot -> low oxygen

plus, the jet fuel was gone within 10 minutes...

So, it was just desks, papers and computers... then about 6-8 ft to the ceiling.

As I said, your analogy does not work and the visible facts betray that position... thanks for trying, better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Reality disagrees.

Especially the dark.smoke-> low oxygen fire thing.

And desk, papers and computers are all carbohydrate fuels. Your point?
 
Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Moderator's Warning:
Thread closed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom