Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7
Options
Comments
-
Davoxx your posts are incoherent and immature.
There's no point arguing with you any more when you can't actually discuss something in straight, honest, adult manner.
Maybe you can try again when you're able to deal with the idea that you might be wrong.
And all i said was: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74460379&postcount=1490 -
-
And that's not an answer to the question, hence you know that the video is as fake as I do, you simply don't want to admit it.
It's getting tedious trying to pin CTers to answer straight questions.
You want an answer to a straight question after saying it was "painfully obvious" when I asked you a straight question?And one of which is to gain access to important parts of the structure. Which they couldn't do in secret.
But they could plan to hijack 4 planes in secret? Access to important parts of the structure is quite feasible, by posing as maintenance workers, etc. It could also have been over several years. And, if the explosives were planted as an internal operation, then gaining access would've have been even easier.And again, I can and often have presented many arguments along those line against explosives.
That doesn't even make any sense. Seriously, this is most ridiculous line you've written so far. Every single point I wrote explained in clear detail the difference between explosives and a nuclear device and this is your response? If you've presented the same arguments against explosive then you clearly have no idea of the differences between C4/TNT and nuclear devices.But just because you can explain why it's hard or unlikely doesn't seem to have any impact on what you think is possible.
And space lasers and nukes are both possibilities, and testing for them should have been easy, so why didn't they?
What makes these explanations impossible or unlikely, and why doesn't the same apply to your theory?
I've explained this before, remember the energy requirements and the radioactive fallout, the weight of a nuclear device... is this coming back to you yet?It's not my only argument, but you don't read my posts properly, so It's clearly too much to expect you to know my arguments.
Sorry, you had two arguments, the completely wrong assumption of the amount of explosives required (which you haven't addressed since I pointed it out to you) and the, "well why not a nuclear weapon/laser?" argument.
And now you added one more, about access to important parts of the structure, which is your only sound argument so far.
So to be clear, what other arguments do you have against explosives?
And why won't you reply about the thousands of tons you claim are required? Actually, where did you even get that number from? I've given several arguments that this amount is absurdly high and you've yet to counter or give any validation.0 -
Davoxx, why should I answer any of that when you're not going to respond or not understand anything I post.
The reasons why the video is an obvious fake has been posted.- The fact that the effects in the video are not seen on any other video.
- The fact that the audio tracks don't match.
- The fact that the things seen in the film do not match what happens in actual demolitions.
- The fact that the effects would take 5 minutes in a cheap aftereffects program.
You keep saying that explosives are different from the other two theories because of the various problems with it, yet not understanding that we've been pointing out the same types of flaws in your preferred theory.
But then you argue since that your theory is at least possible then they should of tested for it.
But then this also applies to the theories you don't like as they are both possible.
But you realise that the other two theories didn't need to be tested for because there is no evidence for them and are ridiculous (even if possible).
This applies to the explosive theory.
You just aren't honest enough to admit this.
But of course I've a feeling that you're not going to read a shred of this and I've just wasted my time.0 -
Ah well in that case I'll just accept what I'm told then and stop asking questions.
And he also said that he was misrepresented, so which should I listen to and which should I ignore?
But hey why should it bother me that Avery has distanced himself from the interview and his other claims....
http://www.oneonta.ny.us/government/departments/police/press_release_2011127.asp
Was he next
By the way the charges were dropped0 -
Advertisement
-
I understand what you post, well the words, the content doesn't make any sense.Davoxx, why should I answer any of that when you're not going to respond or not understand anything I post.
You keep saying you've pointing out flaws, but have only statements that are physically incorrect and yet not understanding that I've been pointing this out to you.You keep saying that explosives are different from the other two theories because of the various problems with it, yet not understanding that we've been pointing out the same types of flaws in your preferred theory.
Which same flaws are these? The power required for a laser? The access to nuclear devices? No seriously, you don't seem to understand that I've simply debunked your "flaws" as being factually incorrect, not failed to understand them. When I point out that you're wrong, it's not that I don't understand, it's that you're wrong.
No. I explained the differences already.But then you argue since that your theory is at least possible then they should of tested for it.
But then this also applies to the theories you don't like as they are both possible.
Again, no. I explained the differences already.But you realise that the other two theories didn't need to be tested for because there is no evidence for them and are ridiculous (even if possible).
This applies to the explosive theory.
You just aren't honest enough to admit this.
You just aren't able to understand this.
Actually, reading this just wasted my time.But of course I've a feeling that you're not going to read a shred of this and I've just wasted my time.0 -
That everyone includes the media, the investigators, the political leaders. Evidence can be held back/destroyed/altered. Has all the evidence collected in the investigations of 9/11 been released?
Again you miss the point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am, you are, the bloke in the local chip shop is. The problem is the CT's about 911 are a splatter effect of stuff that isn't coherent, often directly contradict theories that are listed on the same paragraph and have no evidence that will stand to any real scrutiny. Once one theory is shown to be bull they move onto the next, or say everyone is in on it. This stinks of having reached a conclusion and evidence be damned.
Governments all over the world often don't release all the data from investigations, for numerous reasons. If you assume they are hiding something (which you do) then this will obviously seem suspicious, personally I'm not assuming anything as I have no way to know (just like you don't).Because in the real world all investigations are carried out by professionals who can never be misdirected. And in the real world they are always carried out in the absolute pursuit of the truth and without political or personal motivation. And in the real world people in power never have ulterior motives. And in the real world, governments never lie to the public. Sounds like an argument made by a small child all right.
So here we have you again assuming you know the motivations of the people investigating 911. They hired professionals in many fields, hundreds of them, and not one has any issue with how the buildings fell. But we should take the opinions of some people on the internet over the people which actually did the investigating. Sure why not assume these ordinary professionals would help cover up the mass murder of their own people. Your issue is you mistrust the US government so much you are willing to accept piles of ****e from strangers over the internet that they can't prove or provide logical evidence for. You're willing to think thousands (and it would need to be thousands) of ordinary government workers covered up mass murder. This says a lot more about you than the US government.They didn't test for explosives, fact.
Indeed. Or space lasers or truck bombs or a nuclear blast or giant bunnies, or an almost infinite number of other things there was no evidence for. hmm let's see... explosives make big boom, make loads of marks on metal... metal not marked at all. Trying to see how I might say it to a 3 year old.And what do you even mean by saying I want the world to work differently?
In any investigation they investigate based on the evidence. You want it to work like this... In any investigation they investigate based on the evidence, then ignore that and do what people on the internet say so without evidence because those people are suspicious.
I have no idea how old you are but you have a total and utter lack of understanding of how any investigation should work which is odd.0 -
-
-
http://www.oneonta.ny.us/government/departments/police/press_release_2011127.asp
Was he next
By the way the charges were dropped
What exactly are you saying there?
Are these guys who believe in the conspiracy or something?
Could you at least try to address the points I am actually making before trying to wedge in silly tangents?0 -
Advertisement
-
I understand what you post, well the words, the content doesn't make any sense.
Well maybe you will understand it coming from me, there is no evidence for explosives i.e. video, audio, material damage, primacord etc etc therefore there is no reason to test for explosives. This has been explain at least 20 times in this thread already, using different analogies.
With regards aliens, space based lasers and nukes, these are all theories commonly believed in CT circles. There is as much evidence for them as there is for explosives i.e. zero. Therefore NIST didn't test for them. To further the point of why explosives weren't tested for, all the evidence gathered pointed away from explosives, none pointed towards it. The fact that in theory terrorists could have taken it down is irrelvant because there is no reason to believe it other than in CT circle delusions.
The OT's video, is clearly fake when compared to any other footage of that event as previously stated.
I hope this makes more sense (though I am surprised anyone couldn't follow meglome and King Mob as their posts are quite clear)0 -
So here we have you again assuming you know the motivations of the people investigating 911. They hired professionals in many fields, hundreds of them, and not one has any issue with how the buildings fell. But we should take the opinions of some people on the internet over the people which actually did the investigating. Sure why not assume these ordinary professionals would help cover up the mass murder of their own people. Your issue is you mistrust the US government so much you are willing to accept piles of ****e from strangers over the internet that they can't prove or provide logical evidence for. You're willing to think thousands (and it would need to be thousands) of ordinary government workers covered up mass murder. This says a lot more about you than the US government.
Well i asked you why engineers and architects would risk their reputation
etc
You repliedWhy did Harold Shipman, respectable and qualified, who took the Hippocratic oath to do not harm kill at least 218 plus people? It worries me that all of these people in the video cannot see the very basic things wrong with it. Worse than that at no point is anyone asked a difficult question about the glaring flaws in what they say.
See the double standard ??0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »Well maybe you will understand it coming from me, there is no evidence for explosives i.e. video, audio, material damage, primacord etc etc therefore there is no reason to test for explosives. This has been explain at least 20 times in this thread already, using different analogies.
With regards aliens, space based lasers and nukes, these are all theories commonly believed in CT circles. There is as much evidence for them as there is for explosives i.e. zero. Therefore NIST didn't test for them. To further the point of why explosives weren't tested for, all the evidence gathered pointed away from explosives, none pointed towards it. The fact that in theory terrorists could have taken it down is irrelvant because there is no reason to believe it other than in CT circle delusions.
The OT's video, is clearly fake when compared to any other footage of that event as previously stated.
I hope this makes more sense (though I am surprised anyone couldn't follow meglome and King Mob as their posts are quite clear)
Yes you are absolutely right ... There would be no need whatsoever to test for explosives after you are hit by the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever faced ....0 -
inside job all over it!0
-
Yes you are absolutely right ... There would be no need whatsoever to test for explosives after you are hit by the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever faced ....
If the biggest terrorist attack in the world included hundreds of people running around New York with machine guns killing people there would be little reason to check for bombs to be honest.
For a controlled demolition there would need to be ,months, if not years, of prep work completed by a professional demolition firm, who would need to be paid off or all killed to keep them quiet about it. There would be explosive remnants in the rubble, such as support columns with blast marks or det cord. Without finding these or other explosive artefacts I am assuming it was found that there was no need to test for explosive residue.
On the other hand they tested for it and then murdered everyone in the lab because the truth could be exposed.
Do the people who believe it was an explosion believe that it was a government job or done by Al Qaeda or another terrorist group? And, if the government, why would they?0 -
Again you miss the point. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am, you are, the bloke in the local chip shop is. The problem is the CT's about 911 are a splatter effect of stuff that isn't coherent, often directly contradict theories that are listed on the same paragraph and have no evidence that will stand to any real scrutiny. Once one theory is shown to be bull they move onto the next, or say everyone is in on it. This stinks of having reached a conclusion and evidence be damned.
So the problem with the explosives theory is that it's a CT in the first place? How does that make sense.
Do you have any idea how science progresses? Scientists make theories, they investigate those theories. And then theories are accepted/dropped or refined. Even then, theories are often disproved years later.
You are obviously arguing here based on preconceptions. Don't, it's not the correct way to argue.
Personally, you are assuming something. You've assumed repeatedly that all the data has been released. Otherwise you can't claim that no evidence was found.Governments all over the world often don't release all the data from investigations, for numerous reasons. If you assume they are hiding something (which you do) then this will obviously seem suspicious, personally I'm not assuming anything as I have no way to know (just like you don't).
When did I claim I knew the motivations of anyone? I merely pointed out that in the real world that you seem to think you represent, people are often motivated by goals other than the pursuit of the truth.So here we have you again assuming you know the motivations of the people investigating 911. They hired professionals in many fields, hundreds of them, and not one has any issue with how the buildings fell.
So here we have you again exaggerating everything. Btw, you're just some person on the internet too, why should anyone take your opinion?But we should take the opinions of some people on the internet over the people which actually did the investigating.
Unlike you, I haven't accepted anything. Your issue is that you just blindly believe whatever the majority believes. You probably would've said the world was flat and the sun travels around the earth.Sure why not assume these ordinary professionals would help cover up the mass murder of their own people. Your issue is you mistrust the US government so much you are willing to accept piles of ****e from strangers over the internet that they can't prove or provide logical evidence for.
Why would it need to be thousands? Because you said so? Did someone on the news say this and you immediately assume it to be fact?You're willing to think thousands (and it would need to be thousands) of ordinary government workers covered up mass murder. This says a lot more about you than the US government.
They didn't check all the metal, and it was checked off-site. Also, and this is important, just because they said no metal was marked, doesn't mean it was true. And I'm not saying that it wasn't true either, only that this isn't 100% validated evidence. All it takes is for the few people who checked the metal to not report it, or for marked metal to have not been delivered to the testing site.Indeed. Or space lasers or truck bombs or a nuclear blast or giant bunnies, or an almost infinite number of other things there was no evidence for. hmm let's see... explosives make big boom, make loads of marks on metal... metal not marked at all. Trying to see how I might say it to a 3 year old.
The sound is the only convincing argument so far, see you can do it if you try. However the NIST's sound estimates were based on a single bomb placed at a single location. It is completely reasonable that a number of smaller bombs may have been used and that explosives should have actually been tested for.
What? Can you even understand simple English? We're talking about testing for explosives, not wildly following all possibilities mentioned on the internet. Why can't you understand this difference? Stop arguing by exaggeration.In any investigation they investigate based on the evidence. You want it to work like this... In any investigation they investigate based on the evidence, then ignore that and do what people on the internet say so without evidence because those people are suspicious.
Suspicious people should be investigated. In fact, they normally are.
What has my age got to do with it? You have a total and utter lack of understanding of logic, comprehension and how people think, which is odd.I have no idea how old you are but you have a total and utter lack of understanding of how any investigation should work which is odd.0 -
Why, are you going to give logical and factual arguments now instead?FrostyJack wrote: »Well maybe you will understand it coming from me,
When a person goes missing, the police still investigate it, even when there's no evidence of any crime yet. It's because you investigate something that you find evidence. Can you understand this?there is no evidence for explosives i.e. video, audio, material damage, primacord etc etc therefore there is no reason to test for explosives. This has been explain at least 20 times in this thread already, using different analogies.
Analogies have to be relevant and make sense.
So what? How commonly believed? Why bring them up at all? We're talking about explosives here. Try to stay focused.With regards aliens, space based lasers and nukes, these are all theories commonly believed in CT circles.
Assuming this statement is even true, so what?There is as much evidence for them as there is for explosives i.e. zero.
This doesn't make sense. It has been explained at least 21 times already that the use of explosives was a much more feasible scenario than lasers or nuclear bombs.Therefore NIST didn't test for them.
In fact, the NIST ran simulations for the demolition of the building using explosives. In one scenario, they calculated it required 4kg of explosives. The only reason they dismissed this idea is that they found no evidence of the sound that would have resulted.
Again, this is the evidence gathered years after the event itself, with underfunded investigations and by potentially misled/corrupt investigators.To further the point of why explosives weren't tested for, all the evidence gathered pointed away from explosives, none pointed towards it.
The NIST did not examine the actual metal from the remains. The first investigation of the actual metal from the remains was carried out off-site, with only a fraction of the metal components.
Because you said so? There are plenty reasons to believe, you just dismiss them without any proof.The fact that in theory terrorists could have taken it down is irrelvant because there is no reason to believe it other than in CT circle delusions.
This is actually quite irrelevant to the argument at this stage.The OT's video, is clearly fake when compared to any other footage of that event as previously stated.
No it doesn't. Not even close. But keep trying ... I'll let you know when you start making sense.I hope this makes more sense (though I am surprised anyone couldn't follow meglome and King Mob as their posts are quite clear)
King Mob has quite clearly stated that the explosive theory is impossible because of the thousands of tons of explosives required. I'm surprised anyone can claim that in the first place.
I'm surprised anyone can claim meglome's and King Mob's posts are clear.0 -
we are talking about 911. no mass murder using machine guns.If the biggest terrorist attack in the world included hundreds of people running around New York with machine guns killing people there would be little reason to check for bombs to be honest.
FACT!!! well thanks for clearing that up, the NIST must be really incompetent to say that only 4kg would have done it, and we know that the 911 was planned in a matter of hours so there was no way that anyone would have had time to prep it ... (in case you don't get that that was sarcasm)For a controlled demolition there would need to be ,months, if not years, of prep work completed by a professional demolition firm ...
because they looked for the remnants and then they tested for it and investigated it ... oh wait they did notThere would be explosive remnants in the rubble, such as support columns with blast marks or det cord. Without finding these or other explosive artefacts I am assuming it was found that there was no need to test for explosive residue.
please read the post/reports before posting.
huh? so what you are saying it that it was simpler not to test for explosives?On the other hand they tested for it and then murdered everyone in the lab because the truth could be exposed.
isn't this supporting the claim that there was explosives there?
please read the post/reports before posting.0 -
Yes you are absolutely right ... There would be no need whatsoever to test for explosives after you are hit by the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever faced ....
This is why :If the biggest terrorist attack in the world included hundreds of people running around New York with machine guns killing people there would be little reason to check for bombs to be honest.Why, are you going to give logical and factual arguments now instead?
Because since you were ignoring all previous logical and factual arguments, I thought an even simpler explanation from another source would help, apparently not.When a person goes missing, the police still investigate it, even when there's no evidence of any crime yet. It's because you investigate something that you find evidence.
Terrible analogy, to equate that to match this situation, you would have to say the police would start with thinking it was an alien abduction (not because it is a conspiracy theory but because it is so outlandish and a waste of time and resources).So what? How commonly believed? Why bring them up at all? We're talking about explosives here. Try to stay focused.
I was going to use another analogy but it would probably go over your head again. The reason they were brought up was they are another CT that some people believe, that has zero evidence for, NIST did not test for them as it is a waste of time and money, same for explosives.Assuming this statement is even true, so what?
How can I show you evidence for something that didn't happen? You show me the evidence other than some guy going "I think I heard an explosion".This doesn't make sense. It has been explained at least 21 times already that the use of explosives was a much more feasible scenario than lasers or nuclear bombs.
I agree it is much more feasible, I am more likely to become a millionaire by winning the lotto than I am from becoming an Opera singer (I can't sing) but both are extremely unlikely.In one scenario, they calculated it required 4kg of explosives.
Tell me this is a joke? Please show me where this was stated? 4kg's of anti matter maybe. You would be doing well to blow up a house with 4kg of any convential explosive.This is actually quite irrelevant to the argument at this stage.
It was brought back up only a few posts ago, I was just adding that to the list of things that were wrong in the thread.King Mob has quite clearly stated that the explosive theory is impossible because of the thousands of tons of explosives required. I'm surprised anyone can claim that in the first place.
Find me a link where someone takes down a building with a handful of explosives? If you are talking about strategically placing explosives at particular points that could take the buildings down, would it be a stretch to believe that damage caused by fire and debris to these places brought it down? If so, could you see that there is no evidence for explosives but there is for fire and debris, therefore that has to be the obvious conclusion? If not then there is no hope.I'm surprised anyone can claim meglome's and King Mob's posts are clear.
They are very clear if you take the blinkers off and come in with an open mind.we are talking about 911. no mass murder using machine guns.
You really don't understand how an analogy works. This might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »This is why :
Because since you were ignoring all previous logical and factual arguments, I thought an even simpler explanation from another source would help, apparently not.
I haven't ignored anything, I've simply pointed out the lack of logic and facts hoping you would understand this, apparently not.
Terrible analogy, explosives and alien abductions have completely different levels of plausibility. I was hoping you would understand this, apparently not.FrostyJack wrote: »Terrible analogy, to equate that to match this situation, you would have to say the police would start with thinking it was an alien abduction (not because it is a conspiracy theory but because it is so outlandish and a waste of time and resources).
Was this analogy that you were going to use appropriate? Because that would be a change.FrostyJack wrote: »I was going to use another analogy but it would probably go over your head again. The reason they were brought up was they are another CT that some people believe, that has zero evidence for, NIST did not test for them as it is a waste of time and money, same for explosives.
If some people claim to have heard an explosion, isn't that precisely evidence?FrostyJack wrote: »How can I show you evidence for something that didn't happen? You show me the evidence other than some guy going "I think I heard an explosion".
And hence neither of them ever happen, right? So I guess there are no lotto millionaires or opera singers because they are so unlikely? Is there a point here?FrostyJack wrote: »I agree it is much more feasible, I am more likely to become a millionaire by winning the lotto than I am from becoming an Opera singer (I can't sing) but both are extremely unlikely.
ALSO, lotto winners and opera singers exist, FACT, therefore so did the explosives, by your own bad analogy, (please refer to wiki).
Ok it's a joke. The NIST have a wicked sense of humour.FrostyJack wrote: »Tell me this is a joke?
Page 26 of the NIST report. Once again you're showing your ignorance of facts.FrostyJack wrote: »Please show me where this was stated? 4kg's of anti matter maybe. You would be doing well to blow up a house with 4kg of any convential explosive.
Just because it's an obvious conclusion doesn't make it the correct one. Just because no evidence was found, doesn't mean that no evidence exists. Why can't you understand this? Is it that complicated a concept? If you can't see this, then there is no hope.FrostyJack wrote: »It was brought back up only a few posts ago, I was just adding that to the list of things that were wrong in the thread.
Find me a link where someone takes down a building with a handful of explosives? If you are talking about strategically placing explosives at particular points that could take the buildings down, would it be a stretch to believe that damage caused by fire and debris to these places brought it down? If so, could you see that there is no evidence for explosives but there is for fire and debris, therefore that has to be the obvious conclusion? If not then there is no hope.
Hah! You've just described yourself perfectly.FrostyJack wrote: »They are very clear if you take the blinkers off and come in with an open mind.
You really don't understand how logic works. This might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic. Although I doubt you'll bother reading this either.FrostyJack wrote: »You really don't understand how an analogy works. This might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy0 -
Advertisement
-
I haven't ignored anything, I've simply pointed out the lack of logic and facts hoping you would understand this, apparently not.
No, you have pointed to your theories and your version of the facts, this is not logic, it just suits your world view.Terrible analogy, explosives and alien abductions have completely different levels of plausibility. I was hoping you would understand this, apparently not.
Wrong again, the analogy was that they are bout highly unplausable, which ever is more plausable is irrelivant.If some people claim to have heard an explosion, isn't that precisely evidence?
For a change of pace, I will use a story to show you why this is poor evidence. The other night I was in bed I heard a bang, initially I thought it was a gun shot, if someone had of asked me then, that is what I would say (I have been around many gunshots), then when I thought about it I thought it was porbably just someone slaming a gate or something falling over in the wind. When I got up I found it was a car that had been set on fire up the road and the "explosion" was stuff in the bag going off. There were 3 totally different things the noise could have been, eye witness testimony at the scene of a disaster is shakey to say the least. It is not hard evidence, the explosions they allegedly heard could have been anything.ALSO, lotto winners and opera singers exist, FACT, therefore so did the explosives, by your own bad analogy,
Aliens and laser based weapon exist in theory too, the latter in fact, so no it wasn't a bad analogy and that wasn't the point. The point was there are several theories, not just your own, they could not test for everything (cheese, unicorn's etc). As stated before, if they had of tested for explosives and found nothing, you would complain it was fake report or say it was aliens/lasers ......Page 26 of the NIST report. Once again you're showing your ignorance of facts.
Right I will put my hand up and say I didn't read the whole report, see I can admit I can be wrong/make a mistake, wish you could. But preliminary google searches for page 26 and 4 kg, have shown nothing but "he estimated fuel load of 2.8 X 10^4 kg carried by the plane", is this the 4 kg you are refering to??? Please put up a link if you have one, I am very interested in this (not meaning sarcastically, I actual have an interest in this)0 -
Yes you are absolutely right ... There would be no need whatsoever to test for explosives after you are hit by the biggest terrorist attack the world has ever faced ....
Big planes fly into big buildings at high speed. Buildings burn and then collapse. Not a shred of evidence is found for anything else. So no absolutely no need to test for explosives.Well i asked you why engineers and architects would risk their reputation
etc
You replied
See the double standard ??
Again you completely miss the point. People do a lot of things for a lot of reasons. I brought up Shipman because not only was he qualified he swore an oath to do no harm, yet he did the opposite. I have no idea why individual architects or engineers would claim anything, you have no idea either. However it's quite obvious many haven't asked even the basic questions about what they are claiming, I find that worrying and somewhat suspicious. Just how many people in 'Architects for 911 truth' are even qualified to make some of these claims, I seem to recall that the numbers of architects with the right qualifications and structural engineers was very low. Whatever their reasons they have made some very obviously flawed claims.0 -
davoxxx wrote:In fact, the NIST ran simulations for the demolition of the building using explosives. In one scenario, they calculated it required 4kg of explosives. The only reason they dismissed this idea is that they found no evidence of the sound that would have resulted.
I'm sorry for someone beligerantly demanding everyone read posts, and mocking peoples reading comprehension skills, this has got to be one of the most flat out silly comments I've read about 911.
Stundied.0 -
I'm sorry for someone beligerantly demanding everyone read posts, and mocking peoples reading comprehension skills, this has got to be one of the most flat out silly comments I've read about 911.
Stundied.
Stundied - never heard of that one, can you elaborate ...
i found it .. seems like it was a made up term like the razzies for posts.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=218142&page=50 -
So the problem with the explosives theory is that it's a CT in the first place? How does that make sense.
Do you have any idea how science progresses? Scientists make theories, they investigate those theories. And then theories are accepted/dropped or refined. Even then, theories are often disproved years later.
No it's one of the many CT's, the often contradictory CT's. If one doesn't work shoehorn another one in. Do you accept the investigations follow the evidence? And if there's no evidence for something they wouldn't follow it?You are obviously arguing here based on preconceptions. Don't, it's not the correct way to argue
I have no preconceptions, I am following that I can find evidence for.Personally, you are assuming something. You've assumed repeatedly that all the data has been released. Otherwise you can't claim that no evidence was found.
No I never said that all the data was released, I have no idea. I said that it's only relevant if you assume they are hiding something, which you obviously do. I also said that it's common in investigations that some (or even any) of the data might not be released. Should we be suspicious of all investigation, everywhere?When did I claim I knew the motivations of anyone? I merely pointed out that in the real world that you seem to think you represent, people are often motivated by goals other than the pursuit of the truth.
Best point you've made so far. In the real world people are indeed motivated by goals other than the truth. It just a pity you don't use this knowledge when looking at CT sources.So here we have you again exaggerating everything. Btw, you're just some person on the internet too, why should anyone take your opinion?
You shouldn't take my opinion unless I can use logic and evidence to back it up. Like... no explosive damage=no explosives... see that's logic. Then not one bit of steel was found with the damage so that's the evidence (course you'll just assume that they were all in on it).Unlike you, I haven't accepted anything. Your issue is that you just blindly believe whatever the majority believes. You probably would've said the world was flat and the sun travels around the earth.
But you are clearly accepting opinions from people that have glaring problems with them. I accept the earth is round because I can see it for myself. You realise that having an open mind isn't accepting any old shít. I have no issue believing what can be proven to me, simple as that. You can't even answer the most basic questions.Why would it need to be thousands? Because you said so? Did someone on the news say this and you immediately assume it to be fact?.
I don't assume I worked it out logically. Read this it might help.
http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.htmlThey didn't check all the metal, and it was checked off-site. Also, and this is important, just because they said no metal was marked, doesn't mean it was true. And I'm not saying that it wasn't true either, only that this isn't 100% validated evidence. All it takes is for the few people who checked the metal to not report it, or for marked metal to have not been delivered to the testing site..
So let's see thousands of people worked on site, tens of thousands of pictures were taken, hundreds of investigators and not one, not even one bit of evidence for steel damaged by an explosive. But no let's assume it was all covered up instead.The sound is the only convincing argument so far, see you can do it if you try. However the NIST's sound estimates were based on a single bomb placed at a single location. It is completely reasonable that a number of smaller bombs may have been used and that explosives should have actually been tested for.
Okay let's assume for a moment the sound is the only issue (and it really isn't). Have you listened to controlled demolitions? The sound is very very loud and very very noticeable. You do realise that shaped charges are even louder than the standard types used for concrete? (Go look for yourself) There were people videoing all over the place and yet no sounds of explosives whatsoever were picked up. So the only issue or not it's a massive insurmountable one.What? Can you even understand simple English? We're talking about testing for explosives, not wildly following all possibilities mentioned on the internet. Why can't you understand this difference? Stop arguing by exaggeration.
Sigh... Investigations follow the evidence. That what they do, follow the evidence. I really cannot figure out what you don't understand here. They don't test for things there is no evidence for, it's shockingly simple. No amount of opinions from randomers will change how investigations work.Suspicious people should be investigated. In fact, they normally are.
Sure they are, if there is some evidence they have done something wrong. Let's imagine some bloke claims that a neighbour attacked him with a hammer. The police will check up on the neighbour and if he proves he was somewhere else then the investigation is over. As it would be impossible for it to have happened as was claimed. They won't go raid the neighbours house and test all hammers as it couldn't have happened in the first place.What has my age got to do with it? You have a total and utter lack of understanding of logic, comprehension and how people think, which is odd.
Well I was wondering how you don't get basic logic so maybe you were young. You do realise just because you think something should have happened doesn't make it logical?0 -
Again you completely miss the point. People do a lot of things for a lot of reasons. I brought up Shipman because not only was he qualified he swore an oath to do no harm, yet he did the opposite. I have no idea why individual architects or engineers would claim anything, you have no idea either. However it's quite obvious many haven't asked even the basic questions about what they are claiming, I find that worrying and somewhat suspicious. Just how many people in 'Architects for 911 truth' are even qualified to make some of these claims, I seem to recall that the numbers of architects with the right qualifications and structural engineers was very low. Whatever their reasons they have made some very obviously flawed claims.
I think you lost it somewhere .... when i ask a genuine question about the 1500 architects and engineers you come up with some mass murdering doctor
Fine by me If you don't have an idea in a discussion then say so ... Instead of coming up with those ridicules statements ... maybe you should try to find out why there is so much opposition from respectable people against the official investigation ...0 -
Page 26 of the NIST report. Once again you're showing your ignorance of facts.
That's not what they say in the report. You are lying.
And this is on top of the lies you are saying about what I've said.
Your point is so untenable and contradictory you have to resort to total distortion and misrepresentation of the facts to try and give it some credibility.
What the report actually says is that it considered the scenario of a single 4kg explosive on one column which causes it to fail.
Now this is the same reason that they claim the building fell, just that the column was weakened and failed due to fire. CTers like yourself have gone blue in the face telling us this is impossible.
So if we are to take you little lie at face value, then you'd have to admit that the real scenario (failure due to fire) is possible.
However if we read on from that one statement you misrepresented and lied about we find that the NIST believed that planting this bomb was the only feasible scenario as all the others required far more explosives.
But even this one was determined to be impossible to do without detection as it required them to remove walls and cut at the column with blowtorches.
And on top of that none of the simulations were able to match the window breakage patterns seen. And then it was determined that even this tiny tiny explosive of 4kg would have produced a sound of about 130dB to 140dB at 1km. Which according to the report you didn't read is about 10 times as loud as standing in front of speakers at a Metallica concert.
So with all that, they conclude that explosives could not have brought down WTC7.
But that's not convenient for your world view, so you lied.0 -
Some one here made the point that 1500 engineers (assuming that they all are real and have verified credentials, which isn't the case) account for less than 0.1% of all engineers in the US.maybe you should try to find out why there is so much opposition from respectable people against the official investigation ...
For comparison that's only about twice as many scientists who buy creationism (~0.05%).
I wouldn't call that much opposition.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
FrostyJack wrote: »Figured as much. Typical, can't find facts that fit your world view, lie or distort, abrakedabra, you have a CT. I now remember why I stopped reading this forum, I lost faith in humanity.
are you sure your not looking in a mirror when typing this ??:o0
Advertisement