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

1…78101213…15

Comments

  • #272
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    What I a said was
    meglome wrote: »
    But it's not a moot point, either they had a reason to test or they didn't. They clearly didn't and no amount of reinventing how investigations work will change that.

    As king Mob pointed out, many people really believe it was aliens. or space lasers or a nuclear blast. Should they be checking for all of those things? And for all of the other things people think it is without evidence?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    They had not only a reason but a duty. They failed.

    So if you take your point, they had a reason and duty to check for every single possibility they didn't have evidence for? Or is it just the things you think they should have checked for, but had no evidence?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    It doesn't matter that they apparently didn't spot any blast damage in that tiny little pile of burnt rubble and dust. You still test to be sure. The biggest crime scene in history and no tests were done.:)

    Ahh so these top professionals 'apparently' failed to do their jobs or were all in on it. Is that was I should infer? I don't suppose, other than your opinion, do you have any evidence for this?
    Yes it was one of the biggest crime scenes in history but saying they did not do tests is completely untrue. I think what you mean is they didn't test for explosives residue, from the explosives that they found no evidence for. The ones that couldn't have been there.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Reasons? Let's see..
    The same complex was bombed in '93. That's one reason.
    The responders and witnesses testimony. That's another.

    A massive van bomb was placed in the basement car-park, went off and blew out some floors. Ah I hate to tell you this but there was no mystery as to what caused this. They found clear blast damage, found evidence for a bomb and tested for explosives. You don't see how this is different?
    Eyewitness testimony is always suspect. However when you have numerous videos you can check what the eyewitnesses said against the reality. There are no sounds of explosions... none. There should be some for the eyewitnesses to be correct. Even stuff like bombs in the lobby can be checked against the video are they are no signs of bombs in the lobby.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Oh! And let's not forget:
    The failure of NIST to honestly and properly explain how building 7 fell.

    No one can be 100% sure but I think you haven't read the NIST report as they very clearly state how the building fell. Without the need to invent new tech or have explosives that don't make any sounds or leave any evidence.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    So nobody ever solved a crime on a hunch then? Without finding initial evidence?

    Of course they have. You're still missing the point though. They would have had several different ideas/hunches and then investigated the site to see what happened. When they didn't find any of the tell-tale signs of explosives there was no need to test for residue. Cart and horse... you can't have residue without the rest of the evidence.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I have already said i don't know what happened but am willing to entertain all plausable theories, (but not ones with thousands of tonnes of tnt may i add, nor space lasers etc)

    I'm very willing to listen to all plausible theories. However I still haven't heard any from the CT's. Saying stuff without any evidence doesn't make it plausible.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Anyway, i generally just agree with Davoxx and Ramoccs logic and reasoning; they've summed it up very well.

    Each to their own.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Oh! Lastly, just on that point of why you don't think it's important that NIST didn't heat up the concrete floor slabs; will post this link in case you haven't seen it. The not heating up of concrete bit is in there somewhere)
    It's been up on other threads already. It relates to column 79.

    I never said it wasn't important, I asked you why it was important. I'm still asking you why it's important. Why is it important?


  • #273
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Ramocc wrote: »
    I'm getting tired of the "how about __________" argument. It's nonsensical.

    It's quite easy to plant/controlled such devices, you know, with technologies like mobile phones, radio transmitters, etc. And isn't the main argument in this thread about them not checking for leftover evidence?.

    Quite easy right, I see. So what examples are there in history of a building that it was "quite easy to plant/controlled such devices, you know, with technologies like mobile phones, radio transmitters" where no one finds the smallest bit of evidence for it? I assume since you state this with such surety that would have all the evidence ready. Or maybe this is just your opinion?
    See to believe what you're saying we have to believe all the investigators were blind/deaf/stupid/incompetent/in on it etc. Unfortunately for your theory there is no evidence for that.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    No, the point here is that only a fraction of the metal was even delivered to the inspection site. Every single piece should have been inspected, that's how rigorous investigations should be carried out. Especially since directly after the incident, no one could have known the exact causes so soon.

    Indeed. See what makes sense is if they decided at the site what pieces to take, relevant/useful pieces. Why would they take chunks that have no useful evidence on them. Are all the investigators in on it or just the ones that went though the pieces initially? And of course if they are all in on it why not just fake whatever results they like.. make it airtight.
    Two big planes smashed into two big buildings at 500mph, then there was a big fire. Steel structures can collapse from just fire so I'd hazard a guess they had quite a good idea what happened. Of course if you assume a conspiracy you might not be happy with that.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    And my point here, which you've completely failed to grasp, is that they didn't even examine the metal for marks.

    Really. And your evidence is? They wouldn't have seen odd marks or holes or detcord etc?

    So did they plant explosives in all three buildings or just building 7?
    Ramocc wrote: »
    Generalise, generalise, generalise. This willingness to settle for a half consistent story is precisely the problem with NCT'ers. Face it, you won't accept any evidence or logic that doesn't agree with the mainstream theory.

    No I'm pretty much not getting any evidence or logic but I'm getting a crap load of speculation. Lots of could or might or general incredulity based on opinion.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    So the NIST specifically run a simulation for explosives and yet make no mention of the lack of explosive marks? And you're putting that stupid space laser argument here again? They should mention things relevant to explosives in the section about explosives, no?.

    They simulated the collapse and as part of that they looked at what it would take to use explosives. It didn't match the use of explosives. The simulation also showed the sounds would be clearly heard and the windows in the area would all blow out. So no explosives then.

    I would have loved if they did test for explosives but it would just be another organisation 'that was in on it'.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    And my point here, which you've completely failed to grasp, is that they didn't even examine the metal for marks.

    What thread have you been reading? King Mob (with your support) has argued repeatedly that these things are as likely as each other. You weren't sure of the very clear point we made? That any argument about space lasers/nuclear bombs was irrelevant? You're joking right?.

    The point was without evidence anybody can say anything but it doesn't mean it's valid. We obviously don't actually believe that it was space lasers.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    And now you jump to a bottom line ignoring all the time you've wasted with the space laser/nuclear bomb arguments..

    Which we were using to make a point not that we actually believed it.
    Ramocc wrote: »
    And I asked why you mentioned it. Never mind though, I'm not expecting you to answer direct questions, since you never do.

    I said that I wasn't saying what you thought I was then explained what I was saying.
    Nope not claiming that at all. I have (repeatedly) said they didn't do the test as there was no evidence to necessitate it. However I did say that the CT's have a habit of moving the goalposts. So my experience would tell me (as they claim everyone is in on it) that they would claim the test was faked anyway.

    Is there something you don't understand about this?
    Ramocc wrote: »
    Like I said, I feel the same thing about the NCT crowd. They always have every answer to any possible contradiction in the mainstream theory but can't accept any other theory without it being absolutely perfect.

    What contradiction in the mainstream theory? The only one that keeps coming up is they didn't test for explosives, which we all agree on. You remember those explosives there is no evidence of.


  • #274
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    Ramocc wrote: »
    Come now, less quick scans, more reading. You have to agree that the section about being noticed is not very comprehensive. The windows and sound are the main points they base their conclusion on. The issue of lack of explosive sounds seems to contended a bit here, but I'm simply not convinced by the conclusion that there was no sound of explosives.
    The point about windows does seem validated based on video footage, but only with the scenario given by the NIST.

    I think it is possible (and not stating it as fact) that a different scenario (using different explosives for example) could've avoided the window blow out. It's even possible that the simulation was incorrect since as pointed out, not all parameters were considered (for example the heating of slabs).


    It seemed fairly comprehensive to me, it mentions if a blast of 20% below the required yield to cut the beam would have blown the windows. Look if you want to say the NIST report is made up or wrong just show us where and how you know this. To invoke magic explosives or unknown tech cancels out any of your points as no one can know then, so when so even try to debate it, I can't counter anything you say except, it is unlikely and there is evidence that the current theory is true. Heating the slabs, I don't understand what this will prove, I presume you want to try and recreate the exact environment of the collapse? Are you try to see would it need less explosive to bring it down if they were heated or the windows wouldn't blow out if they were?
    Like I've been saying, this is about drawing definitive conclusions from lack of evidence.
    I don't know what you are trying to say here. That if you gather enough circumstancial evidence you may be able to create a case? Where there is no evidence you are going to put something in to fill the gap?


  • #275
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    It seemed fairly comprehensive to me, it mentions if a blast of 20% below the required yield to cut the beam would have blown the windows. Look if you want to say the NIST report is made up or wrong just show us where and how you know this. To invoke magic explosives or unknown tech cancels out any of your points as no one can know then, so when so even try to debate it, I can't counter anything you say except, it is unlikely and there is evidence that the current theory is true. Heating the slabs, I don't understand what this will prove, I presume you want to try and recreate the exact environment of the collapse? Are you try to see would it need less explosive to bring it down if they were heated or the windows wouldn't blow out if they were?

    I don't know what you are trying to say here. That if you gather enough circumstancial evidence you may be able to create a case? Where there is no evidence you are going to put something in to fill the gap?

    What happened to the last point I made?


  • #276
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    meglome wrote: »
    Ahh so these top professionals 'apparently' failed to do their jobs or were all in on it. Is that was I should infer?

    All that seems clear is that they failed to establish once and for all and without any doubt, that explosives were not used by not testing for residue. I'm not going to try and guess who was in on something or who was not.
    It seems to many though that from looking at the apparent poor quality of the search for explosive damage and the poor scientific guesswork by the NIST report on building 7 (the bit they actually released now; let's forget about wondering why they didn't release it all for reasons of "public safety", that there is enough evidence in their flawed and shoddy methods to arouse suspicion that something is not quite right with all this.
    meglome wrote: »
    There are no sounds of explosions... none. There should be some for the eyewitnesses to be correct.

    Will get back to you on this one.
    meglome wrote: »
    Of course they have. You're still missing the point though. They...."

    I get the point. I just don't see it as a valid excuse for not testing, but anyway this has been done to death on the thread so i suggest we agree to disagree.
    meglome wrote: »
    I never said it wasn't important, I asked you why it was important. I'm still asking you why it's important. Why is it important?

    Ok. You didn't say it wasn't important, but you did say:
    "Right and I'm still waiting for you to explain why that is remotely important".
    I presumed from this you thought it wasn't important.

    Well for for me the reason why it is extremely important is because the NIST hypothesis was based around differential linear expansion, where the expansion of the beam is greater than the expansion of the concrete floor pad above it.
    But in their tests, the concrete pad was NOT heated, thereby nullifying the model and conclusions. I would say experiment, but they didn't carry out an experiment.
    I'm not an engineer though so cannot discuss the technicalities other than observing that this is not scientific to say the least.
    If you watched this vid i already posted, it explains things regarding this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
    I'd rather leave it out there for the more qualified than me to discuss though.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    meglome wrote: »
    Quite easy right, I see. So what examples are there in history of a building that it was "quite easy to plant/controlled such devices, you know, with technologies like mobile phones, radio transmitters" where no one finds the smallest bit of evidence for it? I assume since you state this with such surety that would have all the evidence ready. Or maybe this is just your opinion?
    See to believe what you're saying we have to believe all the investigators were blind/deaf/stupid/incompetent/in on it etc. Unfortunately for your theory there is no evidence for that.

    Firstly, what evidence would you expect to remain? Mobile phones? How about explosive residue that wasn't tested for? See, I'm not saying that this happened, only that your opinion here is quite wrong. By your logic, there can never be an unsolved murder for example, since there'll always be evidence there. The amount/type/interpretation of evidence someone finds depends on how they investigate, it's a pretty simple concept really.
    meglome wrote: »
    Indeed. See what makes sense is if they decided at the site what pieces to take, relevant/useful pieces. Why would they take chunks that have no useful evidence on them. Are all the investigators in on it or just the ones that went though the pieces initially? And of course if they are all in on it why not just fake whatever results they like.. make it airtight.

    But the people who examined the metal didn't get to choose.
    And of course, if everyone in the world got along, there wouldn't have been any attack in the first place.
    meglome wrote: »
    Two big planes smashed into two big buildings at 500mph, then there was a big fire. Steel structures can collapse from just fire so I'd hazard a guess they had quite a good idea what happened. Of course if you assume a conspiracy you might not be happy with that.

    Now you're hazarding guesses? They shouldn't have bothered to investigate at all, just clear up the remains immediately. Of course if you believe whatever you're told by the media, you would be happy with that.
    meglome wrote: »
    Really. And your evidence is? They wouldn't have seen odd marks or holes or detcord etc?

    Sigh. My point here is that the NIST didn't check for marks. It was very simple, was there something you didn't understand about this?
    meglome wrote: »
    So did they plant explosives in all three buildings or just building 7?

    Does it even matter? We'll never know anyway.
    meglome wrote: »
    No I'm pretty much not getting any evidence or logic but I'm getting a crap load of speculation. Lots of could or might or general incredulity based on opinion.

    Now you need to learn what opinion means. Speculation of possibilities is a perfectly valid way to reason, in fact it's part of the scientific method.

    On the other hand, the only evidence given in this thread is that to refute claims by you NCTists. All I keep hearing is your opinion about lasers and crap.
    meglome wrote: »
    They simulated the collapse and as part of that they looked at what it would take to use explosives. It didn't match the use of explosives. The simulation also showed the sounds would be clearly heard and the windows in the area would all blow out. So no explosives then.

    Oh man, you made a stupid irrelevant childish remark about why they didn't put lasers in the report, remember? I retorted that they put explosives in the report and so should've mentioned the lack of marks on the metal. See how that makes sense? Mentioning something VERY RELEVANT TO EXPLOSIVES in a section about EXPLOSIVES. Not the stupid irrelevant childish laser remark?

    And now you ignore my comment and simply jump back to the NIST conclusion. Please answer what I've written next time, if you can.
    meglome wrote: »
    I would have loved if they did test for explosives but it would just be another organisation 'that was in on it'.

    Sure, if you say so.
    meglome wrote: »
    The point was without evidence anybody can say anything but it doesn't mean it's valid. We obviously don't actually believe that it was space lasers.

    The point was anybody can say "well why not ______" and use it as an argument, but it doesn't mean it's valid. Remember the thing about analogies, an analogy is drawing conclusion for one thing based on SIMILAR things. Not just ANYTHING, but SIMILAR things. This is why your point was wrong, as it was shown that space lasers/nuclear bombs are not SIMILAR to explosives. But you obviously believe that they are the same.
    meglome wrote: »
    Which we were using to make a point not that we actually believed it.

    Again, you claimed not to understand the point we made, and now you seemed to have understood it and changed your answer to simply rehashing the point. Remember claiming you couldn't figure out what the point was?

    The bottom line here is that every argument in this entire thread about space lasers, nuclear bombs, unicorns, "why not ______", etc are all invalid, the sooner you understand this the better.
    meglome wrote: »
    I said that I wasn't saying what you thought I was then explained what I was saying.
    Is there something you don't understand about this?

    I knew what you were saying. I posed a question to you to make it obvious that what you said had no place in the our discussion. I even made it very clear for you by asking you why you said it. Which you still haven't answered.

    Is there something you don't understand about this?
    meglome wrote: »
    What contradiction in the mainstream theory? The only one that keeps coming up is they didn't test for explosives, which we all agree on. You remember those explosives there is no evidence of.

    And yet the NIST still simulated it. To use your own silly arguments, why didn't the NIST simulate space lasers and nuclear bombs? You remember, those space lasers and nuclear bombs that you consider the same as explosives?


  • #278
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    What I a said was

    I'm very willing to listen to all plausible theories. However I still haven't heard any from the CT's.

    So you want use to present a theory? I thought you wanted evidence.
    meglome wrote: »
    What I a said was

    Saying stuff without any evidence doesn't make it plausible.
    That is not quite true there. I can state a theory that is plausible without evidence, but it seems you can't. and from that you conclude that no one can.

    besides are you not just saying stuff without evidence?? as an NCT you don't need evidence?




    (i fully expect this to be ignored as the points in here are correct)


  • #279
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    Really. And your evidence is? They wouldn't have seen odd marks or holes or detcord etc?
    evidence is not required to prove that explosives could have been used. though there is evidence of explosions which may or may not have come from explosives, hence explosives should have been investigated.
    meglome wrote: »
    They simulated the collapse and as part of that they looked at what it would take to use explosives. It didn't match the use of explosives. The simulation also showed the sounds would be clearly heard and the windows in the area would all blow out. So no explosives then.
    that's not evidence, that's speculation.

    meglome wrote: »
    I would have loved if they did test for explosives but it would just be another organisation 'that was in on it'.
    so would us who think for ourselves .. you are defending the fact that they did not.


    meglome wrote: »
    The point was without evidence anybody can say anything but it doesn't mean it's valid. We obviously don't actually believe that it was space lasers.

    Which we were using to make a point not that we actually believed it.
    so you were using it to make a point? not as evidence?? so you are saying stuff without evidence and assuming it is plausible?
    meglome wrote: »
    What I a said was

    Saying stuff without any evidence doesn't make it plausible.



    (i fully expect this to be ignored as the points in here are correct)


  • #280
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    It seemed fairly comprehensive to me, it mentions if a blast of 20% below the required yield to cut the beam would have blown the windows. Look if you want to say the NIST report is made up or wrong just show us where and how you know this. To invoke magic explosives or unknown tech cancels out any of your points as no one can know then, so when so even try to debate it, I can't counter anything you say except, it is unlikely and there is evidence that the current theory is true. Heating the slabs, I don't understand what this will prove, I presume you want to try and recreate the exact environment of the collapse? Are you try to see would it need less explosive to bring it down if they were heated or the windows wouldn't blow out if they were?

    I don't know what you are trying to say here. That if you gather enough circumstancial evidence you may be able to create a case? Where there is no evidence you are going to put something in to fill the gap?
    now it seems comprehensive to you?
    maybe if you read more and looked for evidence, you would not look silly disputing what was written in a report that you did not read, and then when proven wrong, you can not even apologise.


  • #281
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    Ramocc wrote: »
    What happened to the last point I made?

    Ramocc wrote:
    Here's another point for you though, the NIST only concluded several years later that explosives were not used, but the tests would've been carried much sooner than that.
    This bit? I am not arguing that they didn't do a 100% good job, that is a seperate argument, I am arguing there was no evidence of explosives. You seem to be arguing there is but saying that they didn't do the checks that would have proved there was and saying that this is a FACT proving there was explosives. I can't make it any simpler. There was NO evidence of explosives, for the last time show me where it is, if not the debate ends here.
    davoxx wrote:
    now it seems comprehensive to you?
    maybe if you read more and looked for evidence, you would not look silly disputing what was written in a report that you did not read,

    I read the section in question, how can you use a document that says you are wrong, to prove you are right? I know, because you are a delusional selective reader, the quality of CT'er has fallen around here it seems.
    davoxx wrote:
    when proven wrong, you can not even apologise.
    Build a bridge.... you still haven't appologised for wasting our time posting irrelevant links and for trolling. Say what you want, I will not be responding to you for sure. Have a nice life, hope the price of tinfoil doesn't go up.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    I read the section in question, how can you use a document that says you are wrong, to prove you are right? I know, because you are a delusional selective reader, the quality of CT'er has fallen around here it seems.
    how does it say i am wrong? where am i wrong? could 4kg of explosives have taken down wtc7 or not from the report?

    this is a new low for the quality of NCTs.

    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Build a bridge.... you still haven't appologised for wasting our time posting irrelevant links and for trolling. Say what you want, I will not be responding to you for sure. Have a nice life, hope the price of tinfoil doesn't go up.
    if you think you time is being wasted, please do not visit the forum.


  • #283
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    This bit? I am not arguing that they didn't do a 100% good job, that is a seperate argument, I am arguing there was no evidence of explosives. You seem to be arguing there is but saying that they didn't do the checks that would have proved there was and saying that this is a FACT proving there was explosives. I can't make it any simpler. There was NO evidence of explosives, for the last time show me where it is, if not the debate ends here.

    Wow, you completely misunderstood what I wrote. Or deliberately misinterpreted it.

    Let me spell it out for you:

    My point was that you and every other NCT'ist on this thread have repeatedly argued that since the NIST concluded that explosives were not involved, there was no reason to test for explosives.

    BUT, and it's a really simple BUT, the NIST report was published YEARS LATER. Well after the testing would have been done. Do you understand what I'm saying here? That using the NIST report to explain the non-testing of explosives that should've occured YEARS EARLIER is, like most of the NCT'ist arguments in this thread, complete nonsense.

    One more time, my point was about the time frame, the NIST report came WELL AFTER the time frame when explosives would having been tested for. I can't make it any simpler.

    And when did I ever argue there WAS evidence of explosives? Show me one time I said or even implied it. If you can't, then YOUR debate should end here.

    Seriously, the quality of people around here has fallen here it seems.


  • #284
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    Ramocc wrote: »

    My point was that you and every other NCT'ist on this thread have repeatedly argued that since the NIST concluded that explosives were not involved, there was no reason to test for explosives.

    We have said constantly that the reason they did not test for residue is there was no evidence i.e. the reason to test for it. The only stand point then is you think the investigators were inept or "in on the cover up". No "NCT" has said that is not a possibility they said it was unlikely. The original arguement was there was explosives used, the only evidence for this was they didn't test for it. I think everyone here agrees they should have tested for residue, if only to close the door further on CTer's.
    Ramocc wrote:
    And when did I ever argue there WAS evidence of explosives? Show me one time I said or even implied it.

    So then you agree there was no evidence of explosives, and your only beef is the NIST report is not 100% conclusive therefore you are not 100% the accepted theory. If so, that is fine, we have no beef. If you on the other hand saying they didn't test for residue and the information gattering was flawed therefore I believe explosives were used, then your logic is wrong I am afraid.
    Seriously, the quality of people around here has fallen here it seems.
    There is a name for when you repeat what something some one says and change it to them, can't think of it off the top of my head.


  • #285
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    We have said constantly that the reason they did not test for residue is there was no evidence i.e. the reason to test for it. The only stand point then is you think the investigators were inept or "in on the cover up". No "NCT" has said that is not a possibility they said it was unlikely. The original arguement was there was explosives used, the only evidence for this was they didn't test for it. I think everyone here agrees they should have tested for residue, if only to close the door further on CTer's.

    You really love drawing the wrong conclusion. You have "evidence = the ONLY reason to test for it" despite many posts in this thread argued against that. But of course you're right, NCT'ists are always right.

    Then you go on to tell me what I think. But that's only because of the previous point, you think that "no evidence = no reason to test" and then draw another incorrect conclusion.

    I've argued that the POSSIBILITY of explosives should be enough of a reason to test for residue. You and others then using space lasers and nuclear bombs to counter that argument. When Davoxx and I rubbish that argument, you and others then deny ANY POSSIBILITY of explosives using, amongst other things, the NIST conclusion. I've pointed out that fallacy in that argument due to the time of the report, and you jump right back to your first argument. Well done.

    And you're wrong, some people here are adamant that there was no need at all to check for residue. Hence the argument. But go on, you seem to know what everyone else is thinking anyway.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    So then you agree there was no evidence of explosives, and your only beef is the NIST report is not 100% conclusive therefore you are not 100% the accepted theory. If so, that is fine, we have no beef. If you on the other hand saying they didn't test for residue and the information gattering was flawed therefore I believe explosives were used, then your logic is wrong I am afraid.

    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"? Can you really not see the difference?

    I asked you to show me where I ever said or implied explosives were involved. You couldn't. Now you come up with another argument for me and call my logic wrong. You really should just argue with yourself, at least then you'll actually be right automatically.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    There is a name for when you repeat what something some one says and change it to them, can't think of it off the top of my head.

    There is a name for when you can't contradict a valid point so you make up another one instead to contradict.

    But it's ok, I don't expect you, or any of the NCT'ists here to actually counter any point made to them.

    I'm done going around in circles with you lot, when you actually counter a point properly, then I'll reply.


  • #286
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    Ramocc wrote: »
    You really love drawing the wrong conclusion. You have "evidence = the ONLY reason to test for it" despite many posts in this thread argued against that. But of course you're right, NCT'ists are always right.

    I said no evidence was the reason, I didn't say it was the greatest 100% unfalible reason. Maybe they didn't test them because they knew it would reveal Coral Snake Unit was behind it and blow the cover up. One of these is likely the other is unlikely. If you are saying there was no explosives then what the frack are you arguing for?
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"? Can you really not see the difference?
    How can you say no evidence = evidence, works both ways mate. If your saying there is no evidence, which you now admit, then your saying your basing your opinion on a guess. How would that stand up in a court, "your honour the victim might have been poisoned", "how did you come to that conclusion", " they never tested for poison", " lock the murderer up, he must be guilty, the natural causes theory is out the window now".
    I asked you to show me where I ever said or implied explosives were involved.
    So you don't believe there was, come out and say it.
    There is a name for when you can't contradict a valid point so you make up another one instead to contradict.

    You have not made a valid point yet, you keep going on about stuff that has been explained and ignoring what you don't like.


  • #287
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    I said no evidence was the reason, I didn't say it was the greatest 100% unfalible reason.
    try saying it was the wrong reason.

    as long as you have a reason it is okay so, it does not have to be right or anything.


  • #288
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    I said no evidence was the reason, I didn't say it was the greatest 100% unfalible reason. Maybe they didn't test them because they knew it would reveal Coral Snake Unit was behind it and blow the cover up. One of these is likely the other is unlikely. If you are saying there was no explosives then what the frack are you arguing for?
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    We have said constantly that the reason they did not test for residue is there was no evidence i.e. the reason to test for it.

    I think you need a lesson in grammar. THE is the DEFINITE ARTICLE, it says it's THE only reason. Not A reason, but THE reason. I don't care about your stupid argument afterwards.

    I think I explained my argument very clearly in the last post, you know, that section that you DIDN'T quote. Wonder why you did that?
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    How can you say no evidence = evidence, works both ways mate. If your saying there is no evidence, which you now admit, then your saying your basing your opinion on a guess.

    FOR THE VERY LAST TIME, WHEN DID I EVER SAY "no evidence = evidence". WHEN?????
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    How would that stand up in a court, "your honour the victim might have been poisoned", "how did you come to that conclusion", " they never tested for poison", " lock the murderer up, he must be guilty, the natural causes theory is out the window now".

    See the might in your statement, that makes it a valid conclusion. The ONLY way to conclude that they were NOT poisoned is to TEST for it. Get it? But the stupid ridiculous exaggerated part after that is not a valid conclusion.

    So what's your argument, "they most likely died from natural causes". Therefore there was absolutely no way, 100% impossible, could not have happened that they were poisoned?

    Why can't you even understand basic logic? Seriously, learn some and stop embarassing yourself.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    So you don't believe there was, come out and say it.

    Why should I? It's the same as me asking you if I'm wearing glasses now? Yes or no?
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    You have not made a valid point yet, you keep going on about stuff that has been explained and ignoring what you don't like.

    I've only made valid points, destroying your ridiculous arguments. You haven't explained anything, just going around in circles.

    You have the AUDACITY to accuse me of ignoring what I don't like when you quote my post and DELIBERATELY OMIT part of it?

    You think you're right, fine, now go away and argue with yourself.


  • #289
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    davoxx wrote: »
    try saying it was the wrong reason.

    as long as you have a reason it is okay so, it does not have to be right or anything.

    Enlighten us with the real reason please since you know for sure. A number of other reasons have been stated: oversite by investigators, cover up, a comms issue etc. Pick one that suits YOUR World view, your great at that. I go with the one with has evidence, logic and the most likely explantion i.e. the one that most sane people believe (I will give you a clue it is the one that involves planes crashing into huge buildings and their damage and collapse caused damage and fire to WTC 7, you know the one we all saw on tv)


  • #290
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    "your honour the victim might have been poisoned", "how did you come to that conclusion", " they never tested for poison", " lock the murderer up, he must be guilty, the natural causes theory is out the window now".

    Nice analagy but a bit bald-headed for what we're discussing.

    To make it a little less baldy for you:

    Victim drops dead suddenly (within seconds). Cops come on.
    Other causes of death are considered as possible but unlikely because no one so healthy has dropped dead quite so quickly before.
    (unless they were poisoned of course).
    Maybe it was a combination of his other ailments and poisoning?
    It turns out the victim was poisoned before in 1993.

    What do the cops do?

    Test the victim for poison in the blood?
    Hell no!!

    They look around the crime scene for little vials that may have contained poison. They don't find any so conclude he got massive heartburn and just died. Case closed.


  • #291
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Enlighten us with the real reason please since you know for sure. A number of other reasons have been stated: oversite by investigators, cover up, a comms issue etc. Pick one that suits YOUR World view, your great at that. I go with the one with has evidence, logic and the most likely explantion i.e. the one that most sane people believe (I will give you a clue it is the one that involves planes crashing into huge buildings and their damage and collapse caused damage and fire to WTC 7, you know the one we all saw on tv)

    after all your arguments, your claiming my points are wrong without and sound arguments, lack of an apology because you could not read a document unless someone gave you a link, which i did ... ... after all that, i can only quote from the above post.
    You think you're right, fine, now go away and argue with yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Nice analagy but a bit bald-headed for what we're discussing.

    To make it a little less baldy for you:

    Victim drops dead suddenly (within seconds). Cops come on.
    Other causes of death are considered as possible but unlikely because no one so healthy has dropped dead quite so quickly before.
    (unless they were poisoned of course).
    Maybe it was a combination of his other ailments and poisoning?
    It turns out the victim was poisoned before in 1993.

    What do the cops do?

    Test the victim for poison in the blood?
    Hell no!!

    They look around the crime scene for little vials that may have contained poison. They don't find any so conclude he got massive heartburn and just died. Case closed.

    This forgets the massive gaping gunshot wound in the victim's chest...


  • #293
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    This forgets the massive gaping gunshot wound in the victim's chest...
    he never said there was ...
    this is why you've been unable to argue a valid point.
    King Mob wrote:
    It would take a cannon the size of a battleship from space to cause a bullet hole.


  • #294
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    King Mob wrote: »
    This forgets the massive gaping gunshot wound in the victim's chest...

    What about the syringe in the victim's arm with the skull and crossbones on it? Or the knife in his back? Or the pool of blood where his legs were cut off?

    Sorry, just thought I'd make the story more colourful since you're finally back and don't have enough to reply to already.


  • #295
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    Ramocc wrote: »
    I think you need a lesson in grammar. THE is the DEFINITE ARTICLE, it says it's THE only reason. Not A reason, but THE reason. I don't care about your stupid argument afterwards.

    So you have a problem with my grammer and now you can argue any other point, grow up.
    think I explained my argument very clearly in the last post, you know, that section that you DIDN'T quote. Wonder why you did that?

    I didn't quote it because again you keep repeating yourself, because something is possible they should have tested for it? That has been countered a million times by there could have been an infinte causes they couldnt test for them all. I have said countless times, explosives are more likely than most of them but that is the reason NIST will give. You counter your own arguement saying the report came out years after the event, so they couldnt have tested it anyway. Should they have left the wreckage and bodies there for you to test?
    Ramocc wrote:
    FOR THE VERY LAST TIME, WHEN DID I EVER SAY "no evidence = evidence". WHEN?????

    Here you imply it.
    Ramocc wrote:
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?
    Ramocc wrote:
    See the might in your statement, that makes it a valid conclusion. The ONLY way to conclude that they were NOT poisoned is to TEST for it.
    The body is long gone or poison has left the system, can the guy be sent to jail, answer no, because lack of proof is not proof in a court of law. Should they have tested asap, yes, but because they didn't doesn't make the guy guilty.
    Ramocc wrote:
    So what's your argument, "they most likely died from natural causes". Therefore there was absolutely no way, 100% impossible, could not have happened that they were poisoned?
    No I never said that, I said it is more likely and you cannot send someone to jail based on assumption, see?

    Ramocc wrote:
    Why should I? It's the same as me asking you if I'm wearing glasses now? Yes or no?
    Beacause we could understand what your incoherant ranting is about. Nothing got to do with glasses or social status etc etc. I would be more worried about your blinkers than your glasses.
    Ramocc wrote:
    I've only made valid points, destroying your ridiculous arguments.
    In your head maybe, not on this forum you have just ranted.


  • #296
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Beacause we could understand what your incoherant ranting is about. Nothing got to do with glasses or social status etc etc. I would be more worried about your blinkers than your glasses.

    now now, nobody mentioned social status ... you have a habit of adding things to arguments, points and evidence to refute them.

    i think you should calm down, bringing in social status is 100% irrelevant.


  • #297
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Nice analagy but a bit bald-headed for what we're discussing.

    I was explaining how a court of law works, not trying to find an exact analogy of 9/11. Your analogy is kind of good though, the only flaw I see is it ignores the fact that there was a massive disaster, heavy lifting, bodies around the place, national panic etc so the crime team may not have had closed lab environment to work in, people not thinking straight etc, combine that with political pressure.
    You think you're right, fine, now go away and argue with yourself.

    I have an open mind, I would go one way or another but there is no evidence to think otherwise. You's are the one's say YOU know. I don't, just following the evidence.


  • #298
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    davoxx wrote: »
    now now, nobody mentioned social status ... you have a habit of adding things to arguments, points and evidence to refute them.

    i think you should calm down, bringing in social status is 100% irrelevant.

    I was saying it was as irrelevant as saying he/she wears glasses, I forgot you don't understand things easily.


  • #299
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    So you have a problem with my grammer and now you can argue any other point, grow up.

    Bah, you wrote something, lied about it. I corrected you and you tell me to grow up.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    I didn't quote it because again you keep repeating yourself, because something is possible they should have tested for it? That has been countered a million times by there could have been an infinte causes they couldnt test for them all. I have said countless times, explosives are more likely than most of them but that is the reason NIST will give. You counter your own arguement saying the report came out years after the event, so they couldnt have tested it anyway. Should they have left the wreckage and bodies there for you to test?

    You claimed you didn't know what I was arguing. Now you do. Weird.

    Like I said, the million times it was countered with the infinite causes argument were all wrong. Just because you use the same incorrect argument repeatedly doesn't make it right. And before you just repeat it again, it's still wrong.

    You even contradict yourself here, you acknowledge that explosives are more likely than most other causes and yet still think the infinite causes argument makes sense? Think about this for a while. Remember, I'm stating that the ARGUMENT involving infinite causes is invalid, NOT THE CONCLUSION you drew from it. If you understood logic, you'd see that.

    And you still don't understand the point about the NIST report coming out years later invalidating its use to justify not testing for explosives years earlier.

    And now you'll probably jump back to the "no evidence = no reason" argument.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Here you imply it.

    No, I pointed out the flawed logic you used. Which you're still using. Why haven't you learned any logic yet? I specifically told you to learn some logic.

    I'll write it several times so maybe you'll finally understand it by the time you get to the last one, or at least attempt to answer it.


    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?
    How does "not saying there was evidence" of explosives imply "saying there was no evidence"?

    FrostyJack wrote: »
    The body is long gone or poison has left the system, can the guy be sent to jail, answer no, because lack of proof is not proof in a court of law. Should they have tested asap, yes, but because they didn't doesn't make the guy guilty.

    Nice story, shame it doesn't make a point. Well maybe in your head.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    No I never said that, I said it is more likely and you cannot send someone to jail based on assumption, see?

    And I never said anything whatever that crap you said about locking him up, blah blah blah, etc. See? It's nice that you can understand some things, keep trying.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    Beacause we could understand what your incoherant ranting is about. Nothing got to do with glasses or social status etc etc. I would be more worried about your blinkers than your glasses.

    Whooosh, it really does all go over your head.
    FrostyJack wrote: »
    In your head maybe, not on this forum you have just ranted.

    You call scientific facts about lasers/nuclear bombs ranting? You call logical deduction ranting? There's really no point trying to explain anything to you.


  • #300
    Ramocc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭Ramocc


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    I was saying it was as irrelevant as saying he/she wears glasses, I forgot you don't understand things easily.

    I think you've misunderstood this statement. I was demonstrating out that asking someone something they could not possibly know conclusively was pointless. Maybe the choice of glasses was a bad idea since you seem can't follow logic.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FrostyJack wrote: »
    I was saying it was as irrelevant as saying he/she wears glasses, I forgot you don't understand things easily.
    then you should have said that.

    i forgot you can't make valid points.


Advertisement