• 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!

Explosions in Basement?

SanderO said:
This is more nonsense... not worth the time to argue...
Click to expand...

Not worth the time because no matter what is presented some will continue to ignore the facts regarding 9/11. Some prefer to use sources like Veterans Today for their news.
 
mike2810 said:
Not worth the time because no matter what is presented some will continue to ignore the facts regarding 9/11. Some prefer to use sources like Veterans Today for their news.
Click to expand...

These 911"debates" can go nowhere because the basic facts and observations are no accepted by people in the discussion. In addition to stipulating to the observations, people need to have a level of technical expertise to discuss the observations.... understand what they are seeing. And of course intellectual honesty is required.

Take Gage with his dropping cartons. This is not a model of what happened and not what was observed and shows a profound misunderstanding of the way a structure of multiple elements fail and if he does he is intellectually dishonest. His mickey mouse cartoon can only appeal to someone who is uneducated and willing to accept a supposed expert who is marketing his view not the facts.

You can go through all the observations and you run up against similar problems... liquid steel is another case.

Most of the 9/11 truther arguments require false observations, driven by disbelief and knowledge of engineering and physics.

Debunking and debating with intellectually challenged people is a fool's errand.... especially when one side is making up things out of whole cloth.
 
Agreed, the 'debate' was over long ago, about the time that the government commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" regarding one element of the official tale or other. No evidence at all.

That there was no debate was further demonstrated recently when the US Attorney for Manhattan buried and did not respond to the ample evidence provided by a Lawyer's Committee regarding the events of the day. That showed clearly and finally that the cover-up required for the bright and shining lie to exist is still running strong. The government will not allow a rational and fact-based discussion to be heard in a US court.

Meanwhile, people "debate" whether Bolt A failed first, or Bolt B failed first, as though that will or will not prove controlled demolition. And another young first responder who appeared in Congress last week, has now died from radiation poisoning.

There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.
 
Thoreau72 said:
...government commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" regarding one element of the official tale or other.
Click to expand...

You mean that one of the elements of the "official tale" was that a hijacker sat in the cockpit jumpseat and that they found "no evidence" that this was true?

Or that one of th elements of the "official tale" was that guns were used and that they found "no evidence" of firearms?

Have you even read the report? Or do you just like spreading unfounded lies?
 
A building's structure is its anti gravity strategy. When the structure fails... gravity wins and things fall. We saw that.

Motion can also be caused by explosions are from say the potential energy of a spring released (kinetic energy).

There are no motions which appear to be something exploding and flying off. Yes an explosion could cause a structural failure and then gravity takes over.

For those who don't accept that fire can undermine steel structures... it falls to them to show how placed devices led to the observed motions. This has never been done.
 
The debate was over a long time ago when the multiple alternative theories of controlled demolition provides no evidence that such an event occurred. The debate was over a long time ago when the Pentagon flyover explanation cherry picked data, misrepresented what witness stated, and provided no evidence of missiles or planted explosives at the site. The debate was over a long time ago when no evidence of Flight 93 being shot down, misrepresentation of ACARS data to try and support a false explanation,

Yes, the official report is a theory. It is based on evidence, investigations, and testimony from witnesses. Yes, there is numerous alternative theories presented by various authors. The problem is the alternative explanations do not fit the data. It seems some really need to check and verify the sources they use. But I know that won't happen. The "conspiracy" business will go on and on. Much like chasing ghosts or bigfoot.
 
Progress, Mike, finally.

Yes, the official report is a theory, therefore a conspiracy theory, and it is one that has been proved invalid in more ways than one can count.

An invalid theory, still held up by the dissonant as true and accurate. The official theory is as valid as the flat earth theory.

60 times the government commission noted "we found no evidence" to support one element or another of that official theory.

The official theory is bankrupt, yet true believers wax gloriously as to its accuracy. People are funny.
 
No progress, HD, seems it is status quo for some.

- All explanations regarding 9/11 are theories. (I have stated that the fire induced collapse for WTC1,2,7 are just that).
- Yes, the official reports are theories. NIST came up with what they considered the most probable cause for the building collapse.
- The known evidence supports a fire induced collapse.

- Interesting how some quote mine documents, cherry pick what evidence they will use and ignore the rest.

Instead of continuing to state the official story is "bankrupt" or "as valid as the flat earth theory", let's discuss your ever changing controlled demolition theory. Your the "free thinker" who seems to have come to your conclusions using bits and pieces from different controlled demolition authors. Why don't you lay it out in detail for us.

You have never provided a detailed explanation.
 
mike2810 said:
No progress, HD, seems it is status quo for some.

- All explanations regarding 9/11 are theories. (I have stated that the fire induced collapse for WTC1,2,7 are just that).
- Yes, the official reports are theories. NIST came up with what they considered the most probable cause for the building collapse.
- The known evidence supports a fire induced collapse.

- Interesting how some quote mine documents, cherry pick what evidence they will use and ignore the rest.

Instead of continuing to state the official story is "bankrupt" or "as valid as the flat earth theory", let's discuss your ever changing controlled demolition theory. Your the "free thinker" who seems to have come to your conclusions using bits and pieces from different controlled demolition authors. Why don't you lay it out in detail for us.

You have never provided a detailed explanation.
Click to expand...

Yeah Mike, let's make it all about me.

Let's avoid talking about the issues, let's just focus on me instead.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

It's so hot in Florida that it takes the fun out of motorcycle riding, but I will still give it a try tomorrow. Happy Fourth!
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yeah Mike, let's make it all about me.

Let's avoid talking about the issues, let's just focus on me instead.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

It's so hot in Florida that it takes the fun out of motorcycle riding, but I will still give it a try tomorrow. Happy Fourth!
Click to expand...

So lets discuss the issue of controlled demolition by nuclear weapons.
Your turn. You are the one who is on record as saying that nukes fit the evidence.
 
mike2810 said:
So lets discuss the issue of controlled demolition by nuclear weapons.
Your turn. You are the one who is on record as saying that nukes fit the evidence.
Click to expand...

All he ever does is say that they were used. That is hardly compelling evidence.
 
zyzygy said:
All he ever does is say that they were used. That is hardly compelling evidence.
Click to expand...

It is entertaining to see a controlled demolition supporter dodge the discussion. It seems we are to take the CD theories as fact. We are not to confuse the issue when one asks which author is correct regarding nukes. It is also interesting that HD says he supports AE911T yet AE911T dismisses any of the nuke explanations.
 
mike2810 said:
It is entertaining to see a controlled demolition supporter dodge the discussion. It seems we are to take the CD theories as fact. We are not to confuse the issue when one asks which author is correct regarding nukes. It is also interesting that HD says he supports AE911T yet AE911T dismisses any of the nuke explanations.
Click to expand...
Remember that the goal of trolling is to get the most "bites" for the least effort. And sillier assertions get more responses than sensible ones.

In the peak heyday of trolling about 5 years back on another forum at one period there were four prominent resident trolls. And they typically managed a "raw trolling index" in the range of 5 or 6. AKA 5 or 6 "bites" for each nonsense post. Over a period of some months I routinely counted "raw trolling index". The all time record event saw 27 posts responding to one trolling post. That needs a lot of active members who are into troll feeding. But it also needs some skilful "needling" to "buy" the responses. And sensible coherent reasoned posts just don't have enough "needle". :doh :lol:
 
mike2810 said:
Breaking News. Thoreau72 is trying to be funny. :lamo

Years ago under a different name he supported AE911T explanation of conventual explosives and nanothermite.
Then Prager came along with a book in someone of a cartoon fashion and said it was mini neutron bombs., So HD/T72 changed his positon.
Then a Russian scientist said it was a nuke 15kt in the basement. So it seems T72 believes it was a nuke in the basement.

So when a question is raised about Prager and the mini nukes in the upper floors. His response is he believes I am a spokesman for Prager.

Far from it HD/T72. You really should examine your sources you use as a "free thinker"? One might start to believe you are just trolling. You use to have some interesting comments years ago. Not so much anymore.

There was not nuclear explosion in the basement of the WTC buildings on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Holy **** TD thinks the device was a 15 kiloton explosion!? Is he aware the fatalities for this would be seven-digit?

This wouldn't leave a collapsed tower, it would leave a crater!
 
Last edited:
I like to think the people at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, less than 50 miles from NYC, might get a little bit freaked the hell out if all of their radiation alarms went off coinciding with a major attack on the United States. Particularly since this is an ongoing thing they are watching live on television with no explanation yet. They'd have every reason to think their facility had just been attacked, and that attacks on other nuclear facilities may be part of the crisis.

I feel like they'd have told somebody.
 
Deuce said:
Holy **** TD thinks the device was a 15 kiloton explosion!? Is he aware the fatalities for this would be seven-digit?

This wouldn't leave a collapsed tower, it would leave a crater!
Click to expand...

To be fair to TD he has never stated the exact tonnage of the basement nuke. I can't recall the Russian physicist who made the claim in a paper he wrote. It has been too many years since I read the article. Maybe it was 1.5K. Doesn't matter the evidence does not support the use of nukes to take down the towers.
 
mike2810 said:
To be fair to TD he has never stated the exact tonnage of the basement nuke. I can't recall the Russian physicist who made the claim in a paper he wrote. It has been too many years since I read the article. Maybe it was 1.5K. Doesn't matter the evidence does not support the use of nukes to take down the towers.
Click to expand...

Smaller crater. Still ends up with pieces in New Jersey.
 
Deuce said:
Smaller crater. Still ends up with pieces in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

Even AE911T does not accept any of the nuclear explanations theories for the destruction of the twin towers. The evidence does not support that it was a nuclear event.
 
When the debate is lost, slander and deception become the tools of the loser. Mike is the new spokesman for AE911. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
When the debate is lost, slander and deception become the tools of the loser. Mike is the new spokesman for AE911. :lol:
Click to expand...

"Slander and deception?" You've said it was a nuke, have you not? Or are we now pretending you never claimed that, same as you pretend your whole "x-ray cannon" idea never existed.

As for debate, all you ever do is handwave away the radiation issue and make personal attacks. How many times have you called me "professor" for knowing stuff you don't know?
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
When the debate is lost, slander and deception become the tools of the loser. Mike is the new spokesman for AE911. :lol:
Click to expand...

Not a spokesperson for AE9111T. I just happen to agree with them on no nukes. Not so much on the other ideas they have.
 
Cafeteria truther, eh Mike?

:lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Cafeteria truther, eh Mike?

:lol:
Click to expand...

I assume you agree with me that the earth is round. Is this something I should criticize you over?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Cafeteria truther, eh Mike?

:lol:
Click to expand...

Seems it was you who talked to a stranger in a café shop (?) about 9/11 and you believed him. No evidence, just words. :doh:lamo

Come back when you are ready to discuss the use of nukes on 9/11. Till then you really are not offering anything of value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom