1999 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

And I never said I would or could....lol

But its possible that explosives were used and no debunking crusader opinion is going to beat the evidence of the people who were at GZ.

Read on.

Quote

Stephen Jones, a professor emeritus at Brigham Young University, reported traces of a substance called thermite on a steel beam section taken from ground zero to be used in a Sept. 11 memorial. However, Blanchard notes that thermite is not used, nor would it be useful, in a controlled demolition.

Since thermite can be used for welding and cutting steel, it seems more likely that thermite would result from removing a section of beam from the ground zero site.

[Stundie]

RaptorBites, on 02 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Let's be fair Sky he has provided evidence, unfortunately he cannot qualify the witnesses making the statements that they heard demolition explosives.  

Well its nice to hear you admit that Raptor.

I'm not here to prove that is what they heard, I am here to show the possibility and that it is not impossible or they are wrong as some internet warriors seems to think.

RaptorBites, on 02 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Therefore, his so called evidence is moot till he can provide qualification.

The evidence from the numerous eyewitnesses is not moot, it's first hand accounts of people who were there.

What is moot is claiming they heard something else without any supporting evidence.

And while I admit, it could be something other than explosives, until there is evidence for something else, then explosives remain a possibility.

RaptorBites, on 02 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

On the flip side, if the Industry considers Blanchard an expert in controlled demolitions, then his statement regarding Blanchard not being an expert will need to be taken up to people that work in the industry.  

Who in the industry considers him to be an expert in controlled demolition?? Protec and implosion World are companies and organisations which he runs.

RaptorBites, on 02 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Till then, if he is qualified by the industry he works in as an expert, then by golly, he's an expert.

I do not understand how hard it is to understand that.

Due to the fact that he has never planned a demolition, rigged a buidling and demolished it.

He might be the worlds biggest fan of demolitions, he may have watch tons of them and I'm sure he is very knowledgable about them, but that doesn't make him an expert when he has never rigged an explosion.

In otherwords, you need a building demolishing and you have 2 guys.....

Person (A) whose makes a living and has previous experience of planning, rigging and demolition buildings.
or
Person ( who monitors and watches demolitions but has no experince of planning, rigging and demolition buildings.

Whose the expert and more importantly, who you going to call?

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

There were no bomb explosions noted anywhere on the videos, on audio nor on the local sensors.

Yes they were Skyeagle, denial and ignorance are no substitute for the hard cold reality in which there were sounds which were just like explosives.

I could spam the forum with them, but I know you have seen them!

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Well its nice to hear you admit that Raptor.

I'm not here to prove that is what they heard, I am here to show the possibility and that it is not impossible or they are wrong as some internet warriors seems to think.
The evidence from the numerous eyewitnesses is not moot, it's first hand accounts of people who were there.

What is moot is claiming they heard something else without any supporting evidence.

And while I admit, it could be something other than explosives, until there is evidence for something else, then explosives remain a possibility.
Who in the industry considers him to be an expert in controlled demolition?? Protec and implosion World are companies and organisations which he runs.
Due to the fact that he has never planned a demolition, rigged a buidling and demolished it.

He might be the worlds biggest fan of demolitions, he may have watch tons of them and I'm sure he is very knowledgable about them, but that doesn't make him an expert when he has never rigged an explosion.

They didn't hear anything related to a bomb explosion and I have posted videos of bomb detonations to make my point.

Read on.

Quote

Brent Blanchard, a demolition contracting expert with Protec and who worked at ground zero, said the tower collapses were only superficially similar to a controlled demolition. For a demolition, explosives are placed in the lower part of the building to cut supporting beams. As a result, the building initially gives way at the bottom, and most of the destruction is due to the building collapsing on itself due to gravity, not by blowing it to smithereens.

The coverup claim concedes a lack of evidence in support of a controlled demolition, and instead tries to maintain that hypothesis by a perceived inability to rule it out. This is called a negative argument, and it is scientifically unacceptable because it can be used to espouse any idea no matter how unlikely.

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 May 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

Read on.

Whats Steven Jones got to do with anything??

Don't tell me, you have fantasised and imagined an argument where I have presented Steven Jones as the worlds leading expert in demolitions or something, right??

Desperate and pathetic. Just face it, Blanchard ain't demolished squat has he??

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Whats Steven Jones got to do with anything??

I thought that you would have known by now since he was the person who threw in thermite and the WTC buildings.

Read on.

Quote

Stephen Jones, a professor emeritus at Brigham Young University, reported traces of a substance called thermite on a steel beam section taken from ground zero to be used in a Sept. 11 memorial.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

They didn't hear anything related to a bomb explosion and I have posted videos of bomb detonations to make my point.

Read on.

Yes, they said they heard explosions, some said they heard explosives.

Posting a video and the opinions of an internet warrior sitting behind his keyboard, denying the sounds of explosions on the videos which have been posted while spamming the thread with repeated videos and links, thinking he knows better than those at GZ might be winning the crusade in your head, but the reality is very different.

[Wandering]

RaptorBites, on 02 May 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Let's be fair Sky he has provided evidence, unfortunately he cannot qualify the witnesses making the statements that they heard demolition explosives.  Therefore, his so called evidence is moot till he can provide qualification.

On the flip side, if the Industry considers Blanchard an expert in controlled demolitions, then his statement regarding Blanchard not being an expert will need to be taken up to people that work in the industry.  Till then, if he is qualified by the industry he works in as an expert, then by golly, he's an expert.

I do not understand how hard it is to understand that.

So unless every single witness at GZ had taken a demolition course, you will ignore their testimony? Nice handwave.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

Desperate and pathetic. Just face it, Blanchard ain't demolished squat has he??

How amusing!!

Read on.

Quote

The collective evidence argues that the controlled demolition hypothesis should be rejected unless new information arises. Is it possible that the hundreds of people in the public and private sector who have studied the causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and worked on site are all involved in a coverup?
The problem with this assertion is that a coverup is itself a hypothesis that must be tested. To invoke that idea without evidence is scientifically unsound, not to mention lazy.

[Wandering]

Wandering, on 02 May 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

So unless every single witness at GZ had taken a demolition course, you will ignore their testimony? Nice handwave.

How many buildings has your 'expert' demolished Raptor Bites?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Yes, they said they heard explosions, some said they heard explosives.

Read on.

Quote

. The coverup claim concedes a lack of evidence in support of a controlled demolition, and instead tries to maintain that hypothesis by a perceived inability to rule it out.

http://www.buffalone...ticle521955.ece

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 May 2012 - 11:47 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 02 May 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

I thought that you would have known by now since he was the person who threw in thermite and the WTC buildings.

Read on.

Bringing up Jones as a subject shows us the length and desperation you will goto because you can't face up to the fact that you can't provide a single building that Blanchard has demolished, which YOU THINK earns him the title of "one of the worlds top demolition experts. "

Totally deluded!!

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Bringing up Jones as a subject shows us the length and desperation you will goto because you can't face up to the fact that you can't provide a single building that Blanchard has demolished, which YOU THINK earns him the title of "one of the worlds top demolition experts. "

Totally deluded!!

How amusing when I have already posted where Brent Blanchard, his company have been called upon by other demoltion companies around the world because of his demolition expertise.

[Stundie]

Wandering, on 02 May 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

So unless every single witness at GZ had taken a demolition course, you will ignore their testimony? Nice handwave.

DIdn't you know Wandering??

You can only tell for sure if it was an explosion that the people at GZ heard, only if they have previous EXPERIENCE of an explosion.

But you can be an expert on demolitions, without ANY EXPERIENCE of demolishing buildings!!

Debunking logic 101!!

[Wandering]

Wandering, on 02 May 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

So unless every single witness at GZ had taken a demolition course, you will ignore their testimony? Nice handwave.

Pretty much this:

Stundie, on 02 May 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

In otherwords, you need a building demolishing and you have 2 guys.....

Person (A) whose makes a living and has previous experience of planning, rigging and demolition buildings.
or
Person ( who monitors and watches demolitions but has no experince of planning, rigging and demolition buildings.

Whose the expert and more importantly, who you going to call?

hmf I don't like this new UM I was editing my original post but I've ended up with 3 new posts? o.O

Edited by Wandering, 02 May 2012 - 11:52 PM.