Peer Review Papers on the WTC collapse. - Page 13

Titanium Cat · 12-03-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

Really? Is that what I said? I think I talked about ruling it out. That's funny, I swear that's what I wrote. Oh, well...par for the course here...

LOL, this is what you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

What it does is make 'ruling out' a nuclear explosion harder.

In other words you don't rule it out being a nuclear explosion and you think people suffering from mysterious illnesses makes it harder to rule it out. Even though there is no evidence of anyone suffering from radiation exposure and a nuclear explosion would have been UNBELIEVABLEY OBVIOUS and left a very distinct signature of damage and radioactive debris.

Quote:

Looks like you have all the answers already! Next....

Anyone who assumes something might be true that has ZERO credible evidence supporting it and a great deal of evidence against it isn't looking for answers. That anyone would be you.

dadakarma · 12-03-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

In other words you don't rule it out being a nuclear explosion and you think people suffering from mysterious illnesses makes it harder to rule it out.

Exactly.

Quote:

Even though there is no evidence of anyone suffering from radiation exposure and a nuclear explosion would have been UNBELIEVABLEY OBVIOUS and left a very distinct signature of damage and radioactive debris.

I beg to differ with you regarding the suffering, and you're assuming you know the nature/extent/details/specifics of such a nuclear explosion; I'm not making that assumption - YOU are.

Quote:

Anyone who assumes something might be true that has ZERO credible evidence supporting it and a great deal of evidence against it isn't looking for answers. That anyone would be you.

[/quote]

'ZERO credible evidence' is yet another assumption of yours, based solely on what was posted here? Am I obligated to provide that for you? No, I'm not. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Titanium Cat · 12-03-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

Exactly.

Yet the only evidence you have provided for there being a nuclear explosion is that some first responders have suffered from mysterious illnesses. And how is this consistant with a controlled demolition? The two are almost polar opposites. That website you referenced compared the explosions at the top of the tower with an underground nuclear blast. But previously we were told about squibs and pointed to "small blasts" indicating a controlled demolition. There two are not even remotely compatible.

Quote:

I beg to differ with you regarding the suffering, and you're assuming you know the nature/extent/details/specifics of such a nuclear explosion; I'm not making that assumption - YOU are.

You are not making any assumptions because you have never even bothered to investigate the kind of damage a nuclear explosion, even a very small one, would make. Or the amount of radiation that it would release. If you had you wouldn't consider a nuclear bomb being used to bring down the towers for even a millisecond.

Quote:

'ZERO credible evidence' is yet another assumption of yours, based solely on what was posted here? Am I obligated to provide that for you? No, I'm not. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Wow, that's a very compelling argument. I am sure you have oodles of evidence that you just don't want to share.

dadakarma · 12-03-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Yet the only evidence you have provided for there being a nuclear explosion is that some first responders have suffered from mysterious illnesses. And how is this consistant with a controlled demolition?

YOU are jumping to those conclusions, not me.

Quote:

The two are almost polar opposites. That website you referenced compared the explosions at the top of the tower with an underground nuclear blast. But previously we were told about squibs and pointed to "small blasts" indicating a controlled demolition. There two are not even remotely compatible.

The website referenced is speculative. You know, kinda like EVERY OTHER point of view here.

Quote:

You are not making any assumptions because you have never even bothered to investigate the kind of damage a nuclear explosion, even a very small one, would make. Or the amount of radiation that it would release. If you had you wouldn't consider a nuclear bomb being used to bring down the towers for even a millisecond.

You have no idea what I've bothered to investigate. I'm frankly tired of wasting my time here, demonstrating what I've found or am questioning. Pearls before swine. You guys already KNOW, remember?

Quote:

Wow, that's a very compelling argument. I am sure you have oodles of evidence that you just don't want to share.

Another assumption - an ARROGANT one: that I'm 'compelled' to enlighten the know-it-alls of anything.

brian_wilbanks · 12-03-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Have you ever flown into NYC? The image of those guys sitting in the cockpit reading a map and preparing to meet their virgins is just too priceless. Pity they can't use it in one of those ads.

You're just such a 1 dimensional thinker.

I dont know how to deal with that kind of ignorance.

Titanium Cat · 12-03-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dadakarma

YOU are jumping to those conclusions, not me.

No what I did was challenge the idea that there was any possibility that a nuclear blast was used to bring down the towers. It's another example of a disingenous argument by 9/11 truthers. No credible evidence, no consistancy with previous "theories", just another "well the buildings couldn't have fallen from the fires" alternative. Another "anything but".

Quote:

The website referenced is speculative. You know, kinda like EVERY OTHER point of view here.

Apparently you think speculation is binary. It's not. You can speculate about things using various degrees of credible evidence. Or you can just make shit up. A nuclear bomb during 9/11 is a clear example of the latter.

Quote:

You have no idea what I've bothered to investigate. I'm frankly tired of wasting my time here, demonstrating what I've found or am questioning. Pearls before swine. You guys already KNOW, remember?

This is false. I have a very good idea of what you bothered to investigate. The fact that you think a nuclear bomb was a possibility is strong evidence that you didn't even bother to seriously think about it let alone investigate it.

If you are tired of wasting your time here then why do you keep responding?

Quote:

Another assumption - an ARROGANT one: that I'm 'compelled' to enlighten the know-it-alls of anything.

I'll take that as a definite "I have no evidence whatsoever".

Denie · 12-03-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium Cat

Yet the only evidence you have provided for there being a nuclear explosion is that some first responders have suffered from mysterious illnesses. And how is this consistant with a controlled demolition? The two are almost polar opposites. That website you referenced compared the explosions at the top of the tower with an underground nuclear blast. But previously we were told about squibs and pointed to "small blasts" indicating a controlled demolition. There two are not even remotely compatible.

You are not making any assumptions because you have never even bothered to investigate the kind of damage a nuclear explosion, even a very small one, would make. Or the amount of radiation that it would release. If you had you wouldn't consider a nuclear bomb being used to bring down the towers for even a millisecond.

Wow, that's a very compelling argument. I am sure you have oodles of evidence that you just don't want to share.

Don't waste your time TC. You're dealing with an intellectual black hole. I try to stay far away from it as I found the closer you get to it, it tends to start sucking your own intelligence into it's great void. Be very careful to not get near it's event horizon...there's no coming back from that point!!!

Denie · 12-03-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Have you ever flown into NYC? The image of those guys sitting in the cockpit reading a map and preparing to meet their virgins is just too priceless. Pity they can't use it in one of those ads.

Never flown a plane I see...LMAO!! Maps? Is that what's used in Aviation Navigation?

WTF? You think when navigating you just pull out a map and follow it?

Titanium Cat · 12-03-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denie

Don't waste your time TC. You're dealing with an intellectual black hole. I try to stay far away from it as I found the closer you get to it, it tends to start sucking your own intelligence into it's great void. Be very careful to not get near it's event horizon...there's no coming back from that point!!!

Are there any truther websites made by someone who could pass a grade 9 physics or chemistry exam? Those sites are sorry examples of ignorance. I remember arguing with Henji98 about an article on prisonplanet that claimed that oil was a self renewing resource. It's truly unbelievable.

Denie · 12-03-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

You're just such a 1 dimensional thinker.

I dont know how to deal with that kind of ignorance.

I'm sure there's a "map" to help you find your way...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode