Stormtroopers 9/11

Submitted by: broizfam 1 year ago in Funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7Ha3VDbzE
There are 213 comments:
Male 6,562
hold to your assumption that the video is exposing facts (with no evidence mind you, just strawman assumptions) all you like jay, your trolling obviously requires it.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Good luck to you.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
As previously mentioned, i don't need it. Also as previously mentioned, no amount of luck will help you at this point jay.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
I'm not surprised you've reverted back to mere trolling: It's in your nature ; Monk/GuySmiley: "Yes i i am a troll to your.." ; Monk/747Pilot: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." - K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules" link
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I'm not trolling now jay, but clearly you are. I understand your need to paint me as the troll when you've been exposed as one, and that it's your last refuge in this thread (which you seem to fear admitting even though we can all see).
0
Reply
Male 6,562
You're not fooling anyone with your trolling, jay, so assert all you want with your strawman video (which even on the 100'th post of it still doesn't even refute 1 point of the key evidence pointing to explosives). It's easy to see you've lost this argument due to your trolling, intellectual dishonesty, and juvenile pettiness. Thanks for the great example to refer back to to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your tendency to troll! I'd offer you luck, but not even luck will help you out of it now.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You're still just trolling and projecting. The video addresses your remarks about explosions being heard, and refutes your principle argument.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Project, troll, and assert on jay. It's truly a shame that it's all you have. Also it's not my remarks, it's hundreds of first responder reports. And yes, explosions sounding like cutter charges were heard long before the first building began to fall, and in fact were caught on video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw. But i understand you have already made up your story in your mind and are too afraid to have pesky things like facts get in the way of it, preferring to be lulled by fallacious arguments that defend the official report (when there is no evidence to support the official report - those who have looked have found it's like swiss-cheese).
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Your trolling aside, you say this one sound was heard long before collapse, while debris was falling? Yet, don't hear anything like it triggering collapse.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You're still projecting ; Monk: "Yes i i am a troll to your trolls.." ; Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." - You still have a history: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules" link
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nope, you're still just your trolling to avoid facing reality. Good luck, if anyone needs it, it's you.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
not at all jay, your choice to troll rather than address the key facts found is quite obvious @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html . I understand that you feel i am denying your reality that the strawman video you posted refutes things, but the reality is it doesn't, no matter how much you want to troll it does.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
MonkWarrior: "Yes i i am a troll to your trolls.." ; MonkWarrior: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." - K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules" link
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I sure do, in fact the link was in the first post i made on this thread: http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html , where you chose to troll rather than address the points presented in the video.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Keep telling yourself that.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I don't need to tell myself anything, http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html is quite clear.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
What's clear is that you are a troll. Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Again, the key evidence hasn't been refuted jay, even though you assert it has (when in reality it hasn't) and i understand this is a part of your trolling @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Also, your argument has been refuted. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. You are welcome to believe what others want you to.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Good to see you finally agree i am a troll to troll, It's too bad you started the troll @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html with ad-hominems and refusing to address the key evidence, which caused your trolling to get trolled, huh?
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nah, it shows you trolling a post about stormtroopers. And provides links to other examples of your trolling. Do you have an example of a controlled demo, that both supports your argument that explosions were heard, yet has no audible explosions like the video of the tower, in order to support your suggestion that it could still have been demo'd -> "since there are many different ways to demolish things"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Let history make its own choice jay by viewing the thread @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html. Don't let it look unfavorably on you by continuing to use fallacies, and ignore things like i'm not arguing a controlled demo, but that explosive evidence was found at the crime scene that was ignored by the first investigation, so a re-investigation is warranted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Do you have an example of a controlled demo, that both supports your argument that explosions were heard, yet has no audible explosions like the video of the tower, in order to support your suggestion that it could still have been demo'd -> "since there are many different ways to demolish things"
0
Reply
Male 2,716
We're still in that thread. You've become unhinged troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Thanks for that judgment, but anyone can visit http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html and see that the ad hominems and trolling began when you were faced with the facts discovered by researchers of the 9/11 crime scene. You're saying that's me coming unhinged in your eyes, but i'm still just waiting for you present your irrefutable and convincing points against the key evidence.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
You're not fooling anyone with your trolling, jay.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
..other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Once again, you are projecting. Warrior: "Yes i i am a troll to your trolls.." ; Warrior: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." - You still have a history: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect link
0
Reply
Male 6,562
It's pointless jay, you have lost all credibility, as you can't admit that you are trolling (when you clearly are) without destroying everything you've asserted. The only trolling i did was in response to your resort to trolling - to draw you trolling into the said zone where you couldn't recover.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
All you are left with is trolling. Again, your argument has been refuted.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I'm not denying it jay, @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html clearly shows you started trolling with ad-hominems, and when you were called out on it with nothing to fall bac, you wanted to paint me as the troll. Yes i i am a troll to your trolls, and i get you don't like it because it shows you can't succeed at 1) defending your argument and 2) making your trolls stick. But you could have easily avoided it by addressing the key evidence instead of taking the troll route, and getting petty and nit-picky (as previously noted in the thread).
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You've still already admitted to trolling in an attenpt to excuse it. Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." Not that you can truly deny it. You don't have a leg to stand on. K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Of course you would think that, but the reality is @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html is quite clear you are a trolling.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Your argument was refuted, so you've resorted to insults. I respond to show you how it is that you are the troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect othee and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Keep telling yourself you aren't trolling even though you were found to be @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. Your argument has been refuted, but you deny reality.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I'm sorry jay, http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html shows that you were trolling by using ad-hominems, and even though you wrote much, you continued to refuse to address the key evidence presented by experts who examined the 9/11 crime scene. Even going as far as to call a request for 1 or two further refutations a shotgun fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nah, I provided a video that allows us to compare a controlled demo to video of the tower falling, refuting your argument. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html already proves you wrong jay, and exposes your video as a strawman.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You're ability to deny reality has been interesting to study.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
not at all jay, your choice to troll rather than address the key facts found is quite obvious @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You only make a mockery of yourself. You deny reality, and troll to avoid facing it.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay, the difference between your trolling and mine is this: You have no evidence to back up your claim but fallacies, mockeries and scorns, so resort to your final island: trolling. As for me there is plenty of evidence to point to that refutes the official fiction, and i am fully able to admit that i am trolling your trolls (as noted, to provide a future reference as to how far you will troll). You however, with your last island of trolling (that you are denying you do), you are unable to admit that you are trolling as it will shatter the petty little tower you've built on it as anyone can see @ ttp://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You've already admitted to trolling in an attenpt to excuse it. Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." Not that you can truly deny it. You don't have a leg to stand on. K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
No doubt it seems that way to you, but the reality is @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html is quite clear that you were trolling with ad-hominems, while refusing to address the key evidence presented.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Your first comment is evidence of your trolling.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Keep telling yourself that troll "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
keep telling yourself you weren't trolling @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html where it was proven that you were.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Keep telling yourself that, and that you hear something that isn't there. You deny reality.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Well your facts haven't been very convincing so far, but your trolling @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html has been enough to prove you are a troll.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Just a statement of fact. Like how unhinged you've become repeatedly posting a link to this thread, in this very thread. And that you are a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Interesting, so you are now introducing delusions of grandeur along with your trolling (exposed @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html)?
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Your reports don't refute what I can see and hear for myself. Trolling is still your department. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 2,716
As addressed above, it is not a strawman. You are suggesting a controlled demo, so it is acceptable to show an example of one, followed by video of the tower falling.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
To further prove your trolling jay, you're now asserting the video's not a strawman. A strawman is giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. Your video (the strawman one), gives the impression it refutes the "sound of explosives", when over 100 first responders reported explosions, and many video cameras, radios and people did pick up the sound of explosives. The video does not refute the fact.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
It does refute that fact. There were no audible explosions. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Well you just keep on watching your video then, and keep telling yourself no explsives were heard on 9/11, even though many were https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTxVIHBRJkw. Yeah, that video also allows comments because it's just presenting facts, unlike your video which is telling people what to think. Troll on jay, it's too bad you can't successfully argue against the key evidence presented, a real shame you wasted so much time over this, but thanks for revealing what length you will go to assert your worldview.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Unfortonately jay, your video doesn't address the witnesses to explosions found by experts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg&t=1370s
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You're trolling with erroneous claims. The video addresses your remarks about explosions being heard, and refutes your principle argument. Not a strawman.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Again jay, you're not fooling anyone with your trolling, so assert all you want with your strawman video (which doesn't even refute 1 point of the key evidence pointing to explosives). It's easy to see you've lost this argument due to your trolling, and possibly your own pride.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You're projecting again ; Monk: "Yes i i am a troll to your trolls.." ; Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." - You also have a history: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules" link
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Your assertions are empty jay, but it's completely understandable why you're making them after your trolling refuge sank, and laid you bare.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Yes, you've tried trolling with another link before, and even linked to it here earlier. Your claims remain unsubstantiated ; You only provide further evidence of your trolling. Your argument here has still been refuted, despite your trolling.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay, you proved yourself to be a troll long before this topic, but this page is another link to use as evidence of it (trolls like to forget). Also it's no news to me that trolls need to call me a troll, because i do a pretty good job at drawing out their trolling. Yes, I admit i was trolling your trolls, and i am not ashamed to admit it either. You however, well it looks like you've got too much invested to admit your trolling (or maybe a pride thing going on), but it is clear that trolling was your last refuge in this thread, which sank while you weren't paying attention. So, thanks for the luck Jay, but keep it for yourself: as you can see i don't need it.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Oh, but you have unsubstantiated claims to go with a link where you admit to trolling. Good luck, if anyone needs it, it's you.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You've already suggested you plan on trying to troll with it in future threads. While the evidence of your trolling is evident throughout this thread, you also try to excuse it several times ; Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." ; Monk: "Yes i i am a troll to your trolls.." - You also have a history of it: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules" link
0
Reply
Male 6,562
When it draws out how deep and desperate your trolling is, it can be quite effective. Also, i'm quite a few steps ahead of you jay, and you'll find out the reason the links were added in due time.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Your trolling and erroneous claims of fallacies aside, do you truly believe that linking to this very thread, within this thread, seems sane?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
not at all jay, your choice to troll rather than address the key facts found is quite obvious @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html . I understand that you feel i am denying your reality that the strawman video you posted refutes things, but the reality is it doesn't.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You only make a mockery of yourself: You deny reality, and troll because you don't want to face it.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Only it hasn't, and you have no evidence to back up your claim but fallacies, mockeries and scorns, so resort to your final island: trolling. As for me there is plenty of evidence to point to that refutes the official fiction, and i am fully able to admit that i am trolling your trolls (as noted, to provide a future reference as to how far you will troll). You however, with your last island of trolling (that you are denying you do), you are unable to admit that you are trolling as it will shatter the petty little tower you've built on it as anyone can see @ ttp://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Also, once again, your argument has been refuted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You've already admitted to your trolling in an attenpt to excuse it. Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." Not that you can truly deny it. You don't have a leg to stand on. K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I don't need to deny reality, http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html exposes your trolling quite clear.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
You can keep denying reality. At least you're the only one here doing it.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Keep telling yourself you aren't trolling when it was proven @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. You can believe what others want you to. Unlike you, I can do more than just throw a link up and make a claim about it. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Again jay i understand you think i'm the troll. But there's no denying @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html who is using ad-hominems, intellectual dishonesty, and various other fallacies and insults, rather than simply addressing the key points presented several days earlier in the post, but calling that a shotgun request (even over a few points).
0
Reply
Male 2,716
I'd post an HTML "quick link" for you with this link too, like I usually do with your attempts at ad homs, but we're at the link you keep posting...you've become unhinged. You're still a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I see, well i suppose we'll have to let the future view http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html for themselves and form their own choice if your video is a strawman or not.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nah, I provided a video that allows us to compare a controlled demo to video of the tower falling, refuting your argument. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay, http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html shows your ad-hominem and subsequent trolling, over a refusal to address the key evidence presented crime scene investigators. If you want to call me a troll, i suppose it could be seen i'm trolling a trol, because they trolled. But i suppose ultimately it wouldn't have been so if you had just addressed the key evidence instead of trolling.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911 -> You trolling a post about stormtroopers.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Oh jay, the record is quite clear on who is trolling @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html. Key evidence about 9/11 was presented, and while i understand you feel the video you presented was enough to refute one point, the reality is that it was a strawman retort. Likely to continue your ad-homiem trolling, to avoid having to address the other key evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Considering all the trolling you've been doing since I shared that video, I'm not surprised comments are disabled.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
.. or should i say, troll?
0
Reply
Male 1,973
Ok, clearly, you are going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what. I'm sure there is tons of evidence that can be found defending both sides of this argument. Me, I'm going to go with what EDUCATION and TRAINING and OBSERVATION tell me, you go ahead and believe the garbage you can find in large quantities on the Interwebz. Make sure that your tinfoil hat is secure, and carry on! This will be my last post on this subject, so don't even bother replying.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Yeah bro, EDUCATION and TRAINING and OBSERVATION is where it is. I don't know what's up with yours, but it seems like your juvenile need to express your mockery and fallacies has been inspired by the large quantities of garbage on the TV (which is big on the official fiction that can't even be proven). Though, i suspect it could also be PEER PRESSURE playing a role here, causing you to fear going against the garbage taught by the TV since a lot of people you know/work with also believe that garbage (and you don't want to be subject to their mockeries and fallacies you're so practiced in, but much less practiced in standing up against). It's hard to say, but at any rate bro, you should educate yourself in the facts and argue with those, instead of making it really clear why you can't argue your point by using fallacies and mockeries, and doubly clear why it's your last post! So maybe now you realize how useless mockeries and fallacies are, and how easy they are to turn back on you, and how difficult it is to stand up to them. Let it inspire you to get educating, get training, and get observing like you yearn to learn, instead of just echoing the crowd that is saying how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are. That way you might avoid these losing situations in the future, have a great one!
0
Reply
Male 6,562
you should try that sometime too jay. People who are seeking real answers about 9/11 are finding there is no evidence to support the official fiction, but enough evidence to indicate it overlooked too much evidence, which warrants a re-investigation. People who are finding this out are not going back, because the evidence is too compelling. So yeah, take your advice.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nah, you're still a troll. Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I don't need to tell myself anything jay, http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html is quite clear that you are trolling.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Footage of the tower falling refutes your argument. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. You are still a troll, and unlike you, I can do more than just throw a link up and make a claim. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Yes that's right, asking for 1 or 2 more videos or presentations to refute 1 or 2 more key pieces of evidence is now considered a shotgun fallacy. Or is that really just a ploy of a troll like @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html ? As for the link "http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html" it does indeed show you are trolling jay, in fact you're using ad-hominens and strawmen videos, and claiming shotgun fallacies over being asking to refute 1 or 2 other key points after your video turned out to be a strawman.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Again, you make a claim and throw a link up as if it supports it. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Again, I won't indulge your shotgun argumentation fallacy. Your principle argument has been refuted with footage of the tower falling.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
"Anybody can claim a long thread supports a claim they make" - incorrect, because in relation to the long thread @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html you will see that it is impossible for you to claim you are not a troll, as you repeatedly refused to address the key evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Anybody can claim a long thread supports a claim they make. Again, you can't see reality. I respond to your insults. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I can support my claim if i use the link here to say "Jay you're trolling like you were @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html" which this thread does show, as you chose to focus on ad-hominem attacks rather than address the key evidence presented by the documentary you can't seem to refute at this time (except for in your own mind).
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Except you can't actually support your claims, just throw a link up that you should actually be embarrassed of, like the one this is from: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
It's amusing that you are trolling but think im trolling you. As for the link, they can sometimes be quite useful against future trolling flares ups.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Already planning to try to troll me with another link?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
It was already mentioned it's a strawman and does not refute key evidence. Also this will make a good future reference.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
If you don't have something to actually support your counter arguments, why are you still here?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I would love to jay, but you're just going to find another way to troll, and you've again proven how much of a waste of time you are. Too bad about that huh? It looks like you'll have to find it out on your own or give up on this angle and start trying to refute the other hard facts.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Which fallacy do you claim is presented in the video (Please name it)? There are many videos of controlled demolitions of buildings consistent with the one in the video. Do you have an example of a controlled demo, that both supports your argument that explosions were heard, yet has no audible explosions like the video of the tower, in order to support your suggestion that it could still have been demo'd -> "since there are many different ways to demolish things"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Not at all jay, i seek answers, not just go by what I'm told out of fear of social reprisal. Enough evidence has been presented to point out there is reason to warrant a re-investigation, as explosive evidence was ignored in the report when it was found, witnessed, and reported, first hand. Perhaps your fear of this fact is the reason you take solstice in your video (which assumes a fallacy for its first argument in case you haven't noticed, since there are many different ways to demolish things), and it wouldn't surprise me if similar fears affect your reasoning elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Already have, but you are welcome to believe what others want you to.
0
Reply
Male 6,125
Been following the comments. This was the PERFECT reply.
0
Reply
Male 597
https://i.sli.mg/vfzBxX.png
0
Reply
Male 6,562
they're a dime a dozen bud: https://goo.gl/SXExj4 but still don't do anything to nullify the evidence found.
0
Reply
Male 1,973
@MonkWarrior: Remember, they can't put anything on the internet if it isn't true. Wanna know where I heard that? :-D People have also "proven" that man never landed on the Moon, despite there being numerous objects that man has left there that are visible via telescope to this day. Just check the internet, the facts are all there, and they can't be false, because they're on the internet! A good physicist can also prove, mathematically, that a bumblebee can't possibly fly, and a two cycle engine can't possibly run. I guess someone forgot to tell the bumblebee and the two cycle engine about this... As to the Twin Towers, I'm a volunteer firefighter in a mostly rural county in South Georgia. I have not much more than the bare minimum of state required training for firefighters, and that training is more than enough to let me know that the events at the Towers are not only possible, from a building construction versus events angle, but highly probable. Try taking off your tinfoil hat on occasion, and letting your head breath a bit.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
No offense man, but your comment is a perfect example of denier comments i often see, which tend to be mocking, ridiculing, and use logical fallacies. Don't take it personally though, popular mechanics started it with their 'debunking' (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/) which was was debunked and exposed to be fallacious ( http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-debunking-popular-mechanics.html ). I understand that a lot of people fear their world-view being challenged by facts though, leading them to find 'authorities' to maintain their world-view (what popular mechanics offers some), in order to maintain the world-view. This is why I regularly challenge my world-view, and can tell you it's ok to let your world-view get challenged on occasion, because it tends to make people much stronger, but i digress. The video presented by architects and engineers, exploring the explosive evidence found on 9/11, provides the facts that are convincing many people that a re-investigation is warranted. I suggest if you want to maintain your world-view, that you focus solely on trying to refute the points they have presented, as anything else will be easily be shut down as it has been here.
0
Reply
Male 1,973
So you are trying to say that firefighter training all over this country is a lie? That generations of firefighters have been lying for many years about the different conditions they see time and time again in given types of building construction? You aren't challenging "world view", you are challenging hundreds of years of observation and testing. Exactly which part of my firefighter training is "logical fallacy"? Yes, I personally attacked you about your views, which was maybe not the proper way to get my point across, but I stand by my statements about what my training has taught me, and how it applies to the situation.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I haven't gone through firefighter training, so i can't comment on it. Also, the official fiction challenges hundreds of years of scientific observations and testing (newton's laws for example), which is what the experts were trying to get across to people, since the mainstream media clearly fooled many people to believing a story that defied what their eyes could see. To further enforce this official fiction, the mainstream media mocks and ridicules anyone who questions or rejects it, even though it has NO clear evidence to back up the official fiction, nor any clear refutations to the key explosive evidence found by experts that examined the crime scene. Remember not everything you are told on TV news is true, and with the evidence found, your world-view might need an adjustment to face up to the fact that you were lied to about 9/11 by the TV. Your fallacy was an ad-hominem that you admitted to, and you're right its not a very good way to make a point. Live and learn.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Here's a quote from their page to give you an example of how other fire fighters are challenging their world view, perhaps it can give you courage if you aren't too invested in what the TV tells you is a fact: We are people from the fire service and the general public, who choose to Honor ALL the Fallen with our commitment to “Never Forget, Never Again.” We are finding the courage to Reexamine 9/11, to Learn from 9/11, to Make Visible ALL who died from 9/11 and the War on Terror, and to create Unitive Actions so that 9/11 type events and Wars on Terror NEVER happen AGAIN.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
That first sentence should have been: I haven't gone through firefighter training, so i can't comment on it, but many others have and have quite a bit to say http://ff911truthandunity.org/ - perhaps you should take it up with them.
0
Reply
Male 6,247
Why DO the Jedi hate us anyway?
0
Reply
Male 40,476
I liked it. "You want another round" lol
0
Reply
Male 6,247
I forgot to mention The Lone Gunman episode was filmed before September and was scedualed to be released in late September and was about an attempt to remotely pilot aircraft into the WTC by the government as a red flag event.
0
Reply
Male 6,247
Another good 9/11 related episode is the banned WTC episode of "The Lone Gunmen" which due to unfortunate timing was scheduled to air in late September 2001 but not shown; and for the real reason for the Death Star's destruction see "Death Star Repairmen" Both I believe are on Youtube. I don't have the urls handy.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
It's quite a hilarious video! It shows how far those who deny the truth will go to make those who understand basic laws of physics appear to be ridiculous, mixing pop culture with mockery. With the fictional death star explosion, the force guided a torpedo to hit the core power generator causing it to explode (not just some x-wings). However with 9/11, 2 mostly aluminum jets flew into buildings, and the following explosion was supposed to have severely affected a steel grid of floors 15-80 floors below it, causing them to collapse completely about an hour later. "The force" was not used, probably no torpedo either, and definitely no power generator was in the building at that point to cause the building to explode when it does upon being breached. The video tries to ridicule those who do understand the basic laws of physics, which experts who examined the evidence have said that in order for the buildings to fall as they would have, extraneous energy would have been needed than just the plane+fuel @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg . So this video is actually quite hilarious! Because in its attempt of ridiculing others, it makes someone who understands the physics of 9/11 required extraneous energy think that if this is the best that deniers of the truth have it's quite ridiculous. But it makes someone who doesn't understand they physics (or who is afraid of going against what the media teaches of 9/11) feel like they are justified at not learning the truth and to continue their mockery and scorn of "truuferz" (the poor souls)!
0
Reply
Male 2,716
"It shows how far those who deny the truth will go.." -> You just did that with your long rant. -> "..those who understand basic laws of physics.." -> Like what happens when the floors above come crashing down on those below? Or the difference between an empty pop can, and one that's full and pressurized (burning fuel to power jets no less)?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay: I know you like doing the run around, mocking and using ad-hominems to do everything to ignore the facts, because i understand you like to troll. But at least try to refute the points in the video presented by architects and engineers who easily refute your "floors above come crashing down on those below", which most people at least 1/2 your age have a strong grasp on already as to why the top 15 floors is unable collapse the bottom 80 floors completely debris and dust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg . Here's the video topics and times for you to focus on refuting each point: Here are the video topics: World Trade Center Tower 7: 1 - (@ 05:40) - A Third High-Rise Came Down That Day 2 - (@ 07:50) - Destruction Of Evidence 3 - (@ 09:33) - A Federal Investigation That Ignored The Facts 4 - (@ 10:40) - Fully Engulfed In Fire? 5 - (@ 12:35) - 47 Stories In 7 Seconds 6 - (@ 42.44) - Unnatural Symmetry 7 - (@ 16:30) - Experts Agree World Trade Center Tower 1 & 2 1 - (@ 17:24) - The Myth Unravels 2 - (@ 20:27) - Sudden Onset Of Destruction 3 - (@ 22.50) - Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions 4 - (@ 25:10) - Direct Evidence Of Explosions Crime Scene: 1 - (@ 27.28) - Melted Steel Beams And Molten Iron 2 - (@ 33.00) - Iron Microspheres Confirm Unexplained Extreme Temperatures 3 - (@ 34.50) - High-Tech Incendiaries in the WTC Dust 4 - (@ 37:48) - Experts Agree 5 - (@ 40:14) - The Next Logical Step Seeking Understanding: 1 - (@ 42:11) - 9/11: Coming To Terms 2 - (@ 52:54) - 9/11: Too Close To Home Closing @ 55:54 But i fully expect A) you to ignore them and B) you to troll constantly. So if you can't come out and refute the points the experts have brought forth, especially since you have said you would watch this (you said this last year), then don't bother wasting any more energy because you'll get no response to your trolls
0
Reply
Male 2,716
"I know you like doing the run around, mocking and using ad-hominems" -> You're projecting again eg. -> "which most people at least 1/2 your age" -> "why the top 15 floors is unable collapse the bottom 80" -> More like 15+1+1+1...etc.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
troll and assert on jay. Shame that it's all you have.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Not surprised to see you trolling so much with erroneous claims. The video refutes your principle argument, and addresses your remarks about explosions being heard.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
You're not fooling anyone with your trolling, jay, so assert all you want with your strawman video (which doesn't even refute 1 point of the key evidence pointing to explosives). It's easy to see you've lost this argument due to your trolling, but a real shame it causes you to act like an intellectual 7 year old..
0
Reply
Male 2,716
And to remind you, your argument has been refuted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.." -> I agree you are a trolling, and thank you for admitting as much. I'll be sure to quote you on it when needed.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Footage of the tower falling refutes your argument. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. You are still a troll, and unlike you, I can do more than just throw a link up and make a claim. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
So since http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html" shows you are trolling, would you agree that i am trolling a troll, and that troll is paralyzed unable to do anything, even though they could simply try to refute the key evidence that was presented that initially caused them to begin their troll in the first place?
0
Reply
Male 2,716
No, it shows you trolling a post about stormtroopers.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html does prove you were trolling by using ad-hominem attacks while repeatedly refusing to address the key evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Again, you make a claim and throw a link up as if it supports it. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
If you say so, but anyone can see for themselves your failure to refute the key points while proving yourself to be a troll: http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
After all, you have been making excuses awhile now -> Monk: "..since there are many different ways to demolish things...For the sake of argument, lets assume for a moment that video does refute a point. Go ahead now, and refute one or two more points...I would love to jay, but..."
0
Reply
Male 2,716
ie. Some people say there's evidence to suggest explosives, some say there isn't.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
difference is people who are saying it isn't warranted are unable to back up the official report solidly (it doesn't add up scientifically and even fails in the face of basic physics), nor can they refute the hard facts cited for a re-investigation (without mockery, ridicule, and fallacies). Wheras people saying a re-investigation is warranted have a lot of facts to show the official report is erroneous (as noted previously), and are educating others on the facts (evidence leads to explosives being used). They aren't mocking or using fallacies, but education and facts.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
And others say it isn't warranted...some say it is...others not, etc. I get it.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
So do many others jay, and what they have found has them saying that a re-investigation is warranted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Again, you're only pointing out that the experts don't agree. That's why I prefer to use my ears, eyes and brain for myself.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Yes, as noted who, upon closer examination of the crime scene, were found to have ignored explosive evidence, throwing their findings into question, and warranting a re-investigation
0
Reply
Male 2,716
"yet the original 'experts that already investigated' ignored it, and flat out denied it despite the evidence." -> Ie. Other experts say there isn't evidence.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Which is why experts have made a convincing case that a re-investigation is warranted - because explosive evidence was found upon closer inspection, observation, and examination, yet the original 'experts that already investigated' ignored it, and flat out denied it despite the evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
But not the experts that already investigated, or those that support that investigation.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
experts who have made a convincing case that a re-investigation is warranted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Male 6,562
You're only holding yourself up by not refuting the points presented by experts who have found convincing enough evidence to say that a re-investigation is warranted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
I won't be held up by your shotgun argumentation fallacies. "remember.." -> Clearly, you remember it differently.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Ah, so you have nothing again but trolls and assumptions, with no real clear refutations to the arguments presented. Sorry to hear that you passed on yet another chance to prove your point of view. Also to end this, "You're projecting again" -> no i'm only pointing out the facts, remember http://www.i-am-bored.com/?p=169843?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
PS: Jay, the time for Unnatural Symmetry is 14:44, and i'm just putting that out there because i know you get nit-picky over little errors like that, and you should also be aware that any time that has a . as a divider instead of a : is actually a :, so be aware.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
troll and assert on jay. Shame that it's all you have.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Thanks for projecting and trolling.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Again, as mentioned, the trolling on my part was aimed at you, to draw your trolling out to the point where you were left with nothing. Assert all you like, but these comments are quite clear that you're trolling. Your fear to admit your own trolling shows why you have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nope, trolling is still your department. You say explosions were heard, the video addresses that. It's not a strawman. In fact, it refutes your principle argument, hence you are left with nothing but trolling.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
You're not fooling anyone with your trolling, jay, so assert all you want with your strawman video (which doesn't even refute 1 point of the key evidence pointing to explosives). It's easy to see you've lost this argument due to your trolling.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Again, a reminder: Your argument has been refuted.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Also, you've already admitted to your trolling in an attenpt to excuse it. Monk: "..would you agree that i am trolling a troll.."
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Wow, links to this very post twice in one comment. You've become even more unhinged. And yes, footage of the tower falling refutes your argument. You're still a troll, and unlike you, I can do more than just throw a link up and make a claim. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Yes i understand you think i'm a troll, after all you've proven yourself a troll @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html, and can't seem address the key evidence, so it makes sense you would want to call me a troll since i keep calling you out on it (which again was proven @ http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html).
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Again, you make a claim and throw a link up as if it supports it. You're just a troll. "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules"
0
Reply
Male 6,562
If you say so, but anyone can see for themselves your failure to refute the key points and proving you are a troll: http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/stormtroopers-911.html
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Goodbye, it's about time. Your argument was refuted days ago.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Thanks for for playing jay. Your intellectual dishonesty, your waste of time, it all came down to this chance to prove me wrong with just 1 OR 2 more points (hardly shotgun). You want to ignore the key facts presented (no surprise really, they are overwhelmingly convincing), and continued your ad-hominem. You are laid bare, and you have nothing and you know it. so long!
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Actually, the topic is technically a video about Stormtroopers. You are suggesting a controlled demo, so it is acceptable to show an example (not a strawman). And I already stated I wasn't going to indulge your shotgun argumentation fallacy. I returned because I admittedly took the bait with your trolling -> "Perhaps you can refute the points they made in the video, and not assume like jay did, that i want you to refute them all, but if you can tackle 1 or two of them successfully it would be a good start." -> Your principle argument has been addressed and refuted.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Yet the topic is the key evidence found by experts who examined the crime scene of 9/11, and all you have is a strawman fallacy video that you assert refutes 1 of the points. For the sake of argument, lets assume for a moment that video does refute a point. Go ahead now, and refute one or two more points *hint: Here's the chance where you prove you're a troll or not, jay.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Not a strawman to show a controlled demo and then the tower falling. And stating the facts about your trolling is not an ad hominem, especially considering its in response to your attempts at insults. Unlike you, I support my arguments, even when it's calling someone, like you, a troll.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Thanks for the judgment jay, but trolling with your ad-hominem fallacy (attacking me rather than the arguments and hard facts presented about 9/11), doesn't really give it any weight if you ask me.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
The video makes a strawman argument jay so it's no surprise it appeals to you, where as people exploring the evidence have presented facts of the crime scene. I can see why that guy turned off the comments to his video, it would be debunked quite logically.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
I'm also not surprised how you've reacted to being called out as the troll you are. K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules." -> Speaks volumes about you, but then you've suggested you don't care if people know you're a troll.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
The video does refute what those people want you to believe, and no, all you came up with was some blogs and internet pretend journals that were refuted by multiple sources. I'm not surprised you remember that differently than reality.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I really don't care what anyone thinks of me jay. It's amusing you continue to personally attack/troll me while calling me a troll, insisting your video refutes first responder reports. And yes, it's a troll jay, as last year you trolled demanding 'peer reviewed' reports and got them, yet here you are with videos that are already refuted by the emergency responder reports. Might as well go back under the bridge, jay.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Clearly you're unhappy being called out as the troll you are Monk/747Pilot/GuySmiley. Again, you can believe what others want you to. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. Monk: "I fully get that you think...and i fully understand you think...you really don't know anything about me...remember http://www.i-am-bored.com/?p=169843?...your trolling just grows from your insecurity..but you're still just projecting.." -> You're hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay: your trolling just grows from your insecurity over your failed assertion that there are no explosives, which is overruled by many first responders, and here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w . Oh, great ad-hominem by the way, but you're still just projecting. it brings a smile to my face to see how dedicated you are to trolling me with such juvenile desperation, while ignoring all the key evidence, because it shows me how much of a grasp at straws you're making to assert your world-view. It's so ridiculous i can't help it.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nah, that's your department @MonkWarrior / @747Pilot / etc. ; K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules." link
0
Reply
Male 6,562
troll on jay
0
Reply
Male 2,716
It's ok, you can believe what others want you to. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. I'm not surprised you try to misrepresent the video. It refutes your argument.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay your video of an armchair warrior looking at 5-6 videos after the fact does not refute the first responder reports of explosions. I fully get that you think it does, and i fully understand you think asserting your point that it has been refuted means it has been refuted, but in the grand scheme of things the first-hand reports of explosions still trumps your video. Again, thanks for trolling, but you really don't know anything about me.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
MonkWarrior: "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck." link
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Your argument has been refuted. Shame you'd rather be told what to believe than use your ears and brain. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there. Good luck to you...if anybody needs it, it's you.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Its really too bad you couldn't even successfully refute 1 of the points, that is, before you reverted back to your trolling ways. Good luck jay.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
I'm not surprised to see you tell another joke and forget the punch line. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
More fallacies to protect your fragile world-view? Doesn't surprise me, jay.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Ha! Most 9/11 "truthers" gave up when Obama was elected...and didn't expose the "conspiracy". Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
The fact is that not even the corrupt governments of the world, with all their power and resources, can maintain the official 9/11 fiction. Every day, people are waking up to the truth and it’s a one way street. No one is moving the opposite direction, simply because the science comprehensively disproves the official theory, as anyone who has studied the issue knows all too well. So good luck Jay, with your efforts, but I don’t fancy your chances of success.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I don't need to tell myself anything jay, especially when the evidence is overwhelming ( and so are the video reports of explosions http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_wtc_implosion.html ). But again, i understand your nature jay, and i fully understand that an armchair warrior analyzing 5-6 videos after the fact refutes all the first responder reports caught on video in your mind.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Actually they're not jay, http://911proof.com/11.html is just a quick list of the many first responder reports of explosions. Many of the people who reported them, along with the experts who examined the evidence were quite surprised that the official report did not address the explosions, and in fact expected them to invesitgate explosions, but they said "there were no explosions". Your video of someone analyzing videos is not refuting the first responder reports, although as mentioned, i understand how it is satisfactory for you.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Nope, the assumptions are yours. I've addressed your point about explosions with a direct video comparison, yet you still complain. Keep telling yourself you hear something that isn't there.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Jay the story is straight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg You're the one doing the assuming. You're the one nit-picking and not addressing the points presented by the experts who have examined the evidence. You're also the one who is grasping at straws to protect your fragile world-view. Your video sums up that perfectly, making a number of 'assumptions', on explosions, so Its no surprise you chose that. If you prefer to listen to someone who tickles your ear rather than fact that many first responders reported explosions, that is completely your choice. I find it to be ridiculous, but i respect that it is your choice.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
Some people heard falling debris you call explosions, and you assume there was molten steel (not aluminum) suggesting the use of thermite which burns (doesn't explode). Get your story straight.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Thanks for proving my point that deniers tend to often have nothing but mockery, ridicule, and fallacies.
0
Reply
Male 3,758
Here is your tin-foil hat back..have a nice day :)
0
Reply
Male 6,562
kalron27: don't worry, feel free to try and 'pop' my 'bubble', but you didn't here - you being a welder isn't the primary point of my reply, just the facts about what was found at the crime scene were. But you might want to be concerned about your own bubble, which causes your judgments to bounce back at you (and might pop your own bubble). Especially if you a) Think that 2 inch bar and a torch equates to steel beams and office fires (or just flat out want to ignore the debunking of that blacksmith's video). b) Think that the heat applied to one point of the building will raise the temperature of the entire steel frame so much that the steel buckles completely (even 5-20 floors far below it), when there was not enough time for the heat of low burning temperature office fires to work its way through the whole building, nor the high temperature required to do so (office furniture for fuel since jet fuel went up in a fireball on impact). c) Want to ignore the points of the key evidence that was found, not attempting to refute any point, but focusing on your blacksmith video (looks like you're doing the 'la-la-la-la i can't year you' thing). d) Want to ignore physicists and architects who have examined the evidence and provided a solid case that explosives were used. e) Want to ignore the fact that steel beams were found that looked like melted candles, and that for 3 months after the fall there was molten steel in the pit of rubble, indicating the use of thermite. So it's no surprise you think i'm the ignorant one, kal. But like i said, you might want to be more concerned with your own 'bubble' than mine, dude.
0
Reply
Male 3,758
Wow, you are a special kind of ignorant. Hate to burst your bubble but I'm a designer as well as a welder. Welding, specifically torch welding, can produce similar heat as presented in the video with the forge, so I can replicate this experiment myself. As the video shows, that 2 inch rod was able to lift the entire anvil when at a normal temp, but when heated...it folds like a noodle. Here is what you are missing. In a steal structure design for a building...any building...if there is a fire, regardless of the floor, the heat will transfer throughout the structure. Once the weak point of the structure reaches a temperature point, the load barring upon that point will fold the structure just as it is shown in the video. The larger the building, the more catastrophic the collapse. This is physics, transfer of heat through metal, weight distribution and gravity working as it should.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
Oh, also i should point out i made an error that it laterally ejected at 200mph (i know how deniers get nit-picky over errors when not focusing on the key points), so that is incorrect as noted by issue 4 of the key evidence. I was remembering the 'squibs' ejection speed, but was off there too since they were seen ejecting at 100mph.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
A welder is not a professional physicist nor architect, (those are the people who could draw plans for a welder's job). So you think that a 2 inch rod in a furnace equates a beam in a building affected by office fires? How do you suppose heat was applied to the whole building structure, affecting the steel 4-80 floors below the impact, when fire was localized to just the impact area? Why did that portion of the steel structure unaffected by heat suddenly give way, and also noticeably eject material at 200kph laterally at several stages during its fall? Can you explain why this building in Dubai burnt longer, more engulfed, yet still stood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCL3sNVBcM ? I know most of these questions are above a professional welder skill level but the physicists and architects have made a convincing case that explosives were used, in the documentary posted above. Based on scientific evidence available, it seems like you might be in the fantasy, but i fully understand your mindset to deny the possibility presented by the evidence that explosives were used. That too is also outlined in the documentary posted above. Perhaps you can refute the points they made in the video, and not assume like jay did, that i want you to refute them all, but if you can tackle 1 or two of them successfully it would be a good start. Here's the primary things that need to be refuted: KEY EVIDENCE 1 Rapid onset of destruction, 2 Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance, 3 Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel, 4 Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph, 5 Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds, 6 Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,” 7 Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile, 8 Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles, 9 Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams, 10 Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples. But i suspect if that blacksmith video convinced you, you will have a difficult time with any one of these facts.
0
Reply
Male 3,758
Sorry, I work welding professionally...your metallurgy is fantasy. This is how heat and steal work together with weight and gravity. Physics and science is against your conspiracy theory.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
I particularly liked how another commenter said "I'm a blue collar guy and I work with metal too welding cutting etc. the so called blacksmith who made that ridiculous movie, doesn't understand modelling and scale either. since when does a a 2 inch rod in a furnace emulate a beam in a building? dude gives us a bad name."
0
Reply
Male 6,562
already saw it, it's already been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuKUmK9eB0
0
Reply
Male 3,758
MonkWarrior please review this video and report back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA
0
Reply
Male 3,758
@MonkWarrior Please review this video and report back to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA @jay I think this will hopefully help...
0
Reply
Male 6,562
PS: Jay, good luck, you're gonna need it.
0
Reply
Male 2,716
0
Reply
Male 6,562
PS: Jay, you may find that comment easier to read if you click on my profile name and scroll down to that comment and expand it, as the proper formatting shows up there.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
Oh boy!
0
Reply
Male 6,562
yeah i know, but college humor is not the best place for humor, and requires such a stretch to see it (imho).
0
Reply
Male 6,125
I posted this on behalf of @TheZigRat who has been trying to post it for our entertainment. Put on your tin foil hats, folks, and enjoy!
0
Reply