TruthMakesPeace
New
Mac: To debate you need evidence, without which are making up claims by hand-waving.
You have four central claims:
1) Occupied buildings were wired for controlled demolition.
TMP: No, wireless was probably used, with 7 years to do it.
2) Steel can't travel 400 feet from WTC 7 to an adjacent building.
Steel bams cannot fly sideways 600 feet from WTC 1 to the AmEx building without an explosive force.
3) "Freefall" means that the building how to have been demolished using explosives.
Steel and concrete columns at least slow the collapse. Free fall is an obvious signature of the use of explosives.
4) Some form of thermite was used in the controlled demolition.
Or some other high tech explosives
I'm asking you to provide some evidence for any one of these claims. Instead of providing it, you hand-wave me over to some paper about the ethics of NIST.
www.NielsHarrit.org - see peer reviewed, experiment based, study in 2009 that no one has been able to refute scientifically.
Do you recall you and I debating the ethics of NIST? I do not.
Dr. Sham Sunder of NIST has lied.
Is the ethics of NIST (which was a talk, not a paper), was given to a group of electrical engineers unqualified to make civil engineering determinations. Is this related any way, shape or form related to your 911 claims? No.
Your claims are about free fall and the movement of steel. Okay. Where are those peer-reviewed papers? Whether NIST is unethical has nothing to do with the movement of steel, your central claim.
www.911CA.org has a list of the papers in non-truther peer reviewed journals.
Some obvious question that need to be answered before you can debate anything.
1) How were occupied buildings wired without anyone noticing?
Ace Elevator Company covert operatives had from 1994 to 9/11/2001 to plant explosives in the shafts. Securacom "security guards" did nothing to stop them. None of them was interviewed or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
www.ANETA.org/ACE
How were the buildings brought down without removing the non-load balancing walls? How was entrance to the offices obtained? How was the wiring run?
No wires. Wireless.
How was the whole process completed in 8 hours each night and nobody questioned all the fresh paint and drywall?
"Building repairs" are not suspicious.
How could the wiring have been run? My understanding the lengths are precise and need to run diagonally through offices.
Wireless
2) The objection to your movement of steel have been explained many times, and you have no paper that even gives the basic calculations.
You have never explained it once. Even if you did, you have no qualifications. You have no PhDs in Physics willing to some forward and provide an explanation.
That's what I need to know. Are you just making all this up to fool people or do you actually have some calculations, some paper somewhere.
You are so fooled by the BS911, it is pitiful.
3) Where is it established that "free fall" means anything, and if it does, does that mean no explosives were used except in one tiny area at the top of WTC 7?
NIST admitted to free fall for 8 floors for 2.4 seconds, plus falling near free fall for the other floors.
Because only one small area of WTC 7 is in free fall. The rest is clearly not.
4) Where is the evidence for thermite? Where is the independent lab work? Why do all the pictures of steel not show cutting/burning at the edges? Why are there no iron and aluminum byproducts all over the place?
www.NielsHarrit.org had the study
Who says that you can use thermite, a substance which is reacts to slowly and can't---according to the Truther video you linked me out to--cut all the way through steel.
Nano-thermite, mixed with other chemicals. Plus other standard explosives and possibly new classified ones.
Let's have a debate in which you can't make crap up. Let's have an EVIDENCE based debate.
You can't make crap up, like the BS911.
And none of those articles you linked me to were peer reviewed. You challenged me to a bet that they were, and I'm willing to take you up on it. We can present your "papers" to Dr. Keith Snail and the loser writes a check to charity.
All 22 on this page were peer reviewed following standard procedures. www.911CA.org
Or do you just want to debate what you make up?
I have no interest in debating what you make up, again, with no evidence to support what you are saying.
You are the one who chickend out of a debate, because you don't have any evidence.
You have no PhDs in Physics willing to come forward and present evidence for the BS911 for the 2nd year.
You have four central claims:
1) Occupied buildings were wired for controlled demolition.
TMP: No, wireless was probably used, with 7 years to do it.
2) Steel can't travel 400 feet from WTC 7 to an adjacent building.
Steel bams cannot fly sideways 600 feet from WTC 1 to the AmEx building without an explosive force.
3) "Freefall" means that the building how to have been demolished using explosives.
Steel and concrete columns at least slow the collapse. Free fall is an obvious signature of the use of explosives.
4) Some form of thermite was used in the controlled demolition.
Or some other high tech explosives
I'm asking you to provide some evidence for any one of these claims. Instead of providing it, you hand-wave me over to some paper about the ethics of NIST.
www.NielsHarrit.org - see peer reviewed, experiment based, study in 2009 that no one has been able to refute scientifically.
Do you recall you and I debating the ethics of NIST? I do not.
Dr. Sham Sunder of NIST has lied.
Is the ethics of NIST (which was a talk, not a paper), was given to a group of electrical engineers unqualified to make civil engineering determinations. Is this related any way, shape or form related to your 911 claims? No.
Your claims are about free fall and the movement of steel. Okay. Where are those peer-reviewed papers? Whether NIST is unethical has nothing to do with the movement of steel, your central claim.
www.911CA.org has a list of the papers in non-truther peer reviewed journals.
Some obvious question that need to be answered before you can debate anything.
1) How were occupied buildings wired without anyone noticing?
Ace Elevator Company covert operatives had from 1994 to 9/11/2001 to plant explosives in the shafts. Securacom "security guards" did nothing to stop them. None of them was interviewed or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
www.ANETA.org/ACE
How were the buildings brought down without removing the non-load balancing walls? How was entrance to the offices obtained? How was the wiring run?
No wires. Wireless.
How was the whole process completed in 8 hours each night and nobody questioned all the fresh paint and drywall?
"Building repairs" are not suspicious.
How could the wiring have been run? My understanding the lengths are precise and need to run diagonally through offices.
Wireless
2) The objection to your movement of steel have been explained many times, and you have no paper that even gives the basic calculations.
You have never explained it once. Even if you did, you have no qualifications. You have no PhDs in Physics willing to some forward and provide an explanation.
That's what I need to know. Are you just making all this up to fool people or do you actually have some calculations, some paper somewhere.
You are so fooled by the BS911, it is pitiful.
3) Where is it established that "free fall" means anything, and if it does, does that mean no explosives were used except in one tiny area at the top of WTC 7?
NIST admitted to free fall for 8 floors for 2.4 seconds, plus falling near free fall for the other floors.
Because only one small area of WTC 7 is in free fall. The rest is clearly not.
4) Where is the evidence for thermite? Where is the independent lab work? Why do all the pictures of steel not show cutting/burning at the edges? Why are there no iron and aluminum byproducts all over the place?
www.NielsHarrit.org had the study
Who says that you can use thermite, a substance which is reacts to slowly and can't---according to the Truther video you linked me out to--cut all the way through steel.
Nano-thermite, mixed with other chemicals. Plus other standard explosives and possibly new classified ones.
Let's have a debate in which you can't make crap up. Let's have an EVIDENCE based debate.
You can't make crap up, like the BS911.
And none of those articles you linked me to were peer reviewed. You challenged me to a bet that they were, and I'm willing to take you up on it. We can present your "papers" to Dr. Keith Snail and the loser writes a check to charity.
All 22 on this page were peer reviewed following standard procedures. www.911CA.org
Or do you just want to debate what you make up?
I have no interest in debating what you make up, again, with no evidence to support what you are saying.
You are the one who chickend out of a debate, because you don't have any evidence.
You have no PhDs in Physics willing to come forward and present evidence for the BS911 for the 2nd year.
Last edited: