New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

FrostyJack

I was going to reply but I can't be bothered now, it's plain to see you have your own version of logic and can't understand actual logic or probablity or evidence. I have better things to do then go back and forth over the same things, you don't get me and I don't get you. I would to know what you actually think happened but alas we will never understand the riddle that is you.

FrostyJack

davoxx wrote: »

then you should have said that.

i forgot you can't make valid points.

I'm out of here before I have to invoke this "Never argue with idiots. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience." Apologies for the crasness, but that is what is going on, I'm outta here. I will be back when a single piece of evidence countering the report comes out. Bye.

davoxx

FrostyJack wrote: »

I'm out of here before I have to invoke this "Never argue with idiots. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience." Apologies for the crasness, but that is what is going on, I'm outta here. I will be back when a single piece of evidence countering the report comes out. Bye.

huh, did you not just try to invoke it? but even your experience failed?

you can't make an argument, could not take the hint that you were wrong and now leave.

finally, the logic of this thread has risen.

and don't come back until you understand basic logic and how to formulate an argument, oh yeah and the ability to apologise when wrong.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

I was going to reply but I can't be bothered now, it's plain to see you have your own version of logic and can't understand actual logic or probablity or evidence. I have better things to do then go back and forth over the same things, you don't get me and I don't get you. I would to know what you actually think happened but alas we will never understand the riddle that is you.

You really have no idea of logic, drawing incorrect conclusions repeatedly. I understand logic and probability perfectly, it's what I do.

And here we see your problem. I'm NOT arguing a counter theory, I'm arguing about the TESTING OF EXPLOSIVES. But you can't separate these things.

davoxx

FrostyJack wrote: »

I was going to reply but I can't be bothered now, it's plain to see you have your own version of logic and can't understand actual logic or probablity or evidence.

no i have logic, there is only one version of logic.
you don't have logic, hence you make bad points and dismiss valid points.

FrostyJack wrote: »

you don't get me and I don't get you.

i get you, i get you're wrong.
you understand my points.

FrostyJack wrote: »

I would to know what you actually think happened but alas we will never understand the riddle that is you.

you don't need to know what i think happened. you need to focus on the points in hand.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

I'm out of here before I have to invoke this "Never argue with idiots. They just drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience." Apologies for the crasness, but that is what is going on, I'm outta here. I will be back when a single piece of evidence countering the report comes out. Bye.

Always about the report, never about the actual point being discussed. Don't apologize, I expect nothing from people like you anyway.

humanji

People, be polite or don't post!

FrostyJack

Ramocc wrote: »

Always about the report, never about the actual point being discussed

Ok I have reread the entire thread now. I will not guess what you are trying to say again, as you will not commit to anything. We will do it one point at a time. Let's start it slow.

What is the point being discussed in your opinion? (Just a quick summation so we are all on the same page.)

ed2hands

Quote:
Originally Posted by meglome
There are no sounds of explosions... none. There should be some for the eyewitnesses to be correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

weisses

For your entertainment

They make a valid point there


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b813ITCwU70

meglome

ed2hands wrote: »

videos cut

So looking at the first video... since you are incapable of telling us what the videos actually say (just think discussion forum).

They quote a fire-fighter as hearing what he said was "like an explosion". See I have no idea exactly what you're arguing here. As far as I know all the sceptics who have posted in this thread have no issue that people heard anything 'like and explosion'. Or in fact that they heard a sound they described as an explosion. I witnessed a car crash and it sounded exactly 'like an explosion'. Was that explosives too?

I fail to see what's so difficult to understand here, three big buildings were either hit by planes and burned or burned. Others were badly damaged by debris. Lot's of things, perhaps hundreds of things, could have exploded when burned or crashed to the ground, etc etc and not one of them need be caused by explosives.

The bottom line is explosives are incredibly loud. To put it in context NIST measured sounds that would leave you permanently deaf if you were nearby and would have been clear as day a kilometre away. No amount of mud slinging or misdirection can change the laws of physics.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Actually I've made none of those claims....

where have you gone friend?
i won't ask for your claim .... heaven forbid and all that ...

comeback ... you have not replied to why you think 4kgs of explosives is not enough to bring down wtc7 even though it is stated in the NIST report ...

comeback please?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

where have you gone friend?
i won't ask for your claim .... heaven forbid and all that ...

comeback ... you have not replied to why you think 4kgs of explosives is not enough to bring down wtc7 even though it is stated in the NIST report ...

comeback please?

4kg was stated as enough to bring down one column. Not the building.

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

So looking at the first video... since you are incapable of telling us what the videos actually say (just think discussion forum).

Welcome back.

meglome wrote: »

They quote a fire-fighter as hearing what he said was "like an explosion". See I have no idea exactly what you're arguing here. As far as I know all the sceptics who have posted in this thread have no issue that people heard anything 'like and explosion'. Or in fact that they heard a sound they described as an explosion. I witnessed a car crash and it sounded exactly 'like an explosion'. Was that explosives too?

Of course not, silly. No one said it was.

I witnessed a bomb explode, it sounded exactly "like a car crash". Was that a car crash too?

The NCT'ists in this thread have all repeatedly claimed that no one heard anything "like an explosion". And now you've been proven wrong, with links/references/all that stuff you kept screaming for. Now you say that it may not have been explosives. Well, it may have been. So there.

meglome wrote: »

I fail to see what's so difficult to understand here, three big buildings were either hit by planes and burned or burned. Others were badly damaged by debris. Lot's of things, perhaps hundreds of things, could have exploded when burned or crashed to the ground, etc etc and not one of them need be caused by explosives.

I fail to see what's so difficult to understand here. Lot's of things, perhaps hundreds of things, could have exploded when burned or crashed to the ground, etc etc and not one of them need be some of them COULD have been caused by explosives.

meglome wrote: »

The bottom line is explosives are incredibly loud. To put it in context NIST measured sounds that would leave you permanently deaf if you were nearby and would have been clear as day a kilometre away.

Remember, the NIST report came out years after the first investigation team should have tested for explosive residue.

meglome wrote: »

No amount of mud slinging or misdirection can change the laws of physics.

Indeed. Like the physics of space lasers and nuclear bombs.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

4kg was stated as enough to bring down one column. Not the building.

oh you're back again .. did you bring your theory too?

bringing down that one column (it is a specific column) was enough to bring down the entire building, as stated by NIST.

i hope you (Di0genes) have read the entire report before arguing semantics with me.

actually someone else posted it on the thread because people like you can not use search functions and need to be spoon feed (you (Di0genes) will get the reference from the pm you sent me)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74473340&postcount=220

ed2hands

meglome wrote: »

So looking at the first video... since you are incapable of telling us what the videos actually say (just think discussion forum).

:)Well i'm capable alright. I did say i'd get back to you. Was doing that. Just thought that the vids would be a suitable reply as we're examining sounds, and more descriptive. I'm all for discussion so long as it has a point and isn't any more sillytalk (not talking about you there).

meglome wrote: »

The bottom line is explosives are incredibly loud. To put it in context NIST measured sounds that would leave you permanently deaf if you were nearby and would have been clear as day a kilometre away.

That's actually the problem.

This vid here explains what i mean by that. (Please don't be cross for me posting a vid again. I could spend half an hour transcribing it, but it's better to just watch it)

Am sure Davoxx knows about it as he seems to be a big dog on the report details so hopefully he tell me if the facts in the vid match up with what was said in the report. (Maybe he's having a nap though or his bottle:pac:)

joking Davoxx;)

Anyway here it is:

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

What is the point being discussed in your opinion? (Just a quick summation so we are all on the same page.)

Are you unsure or just ignoring.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

Are you unsure or just ignoring.

It's been said several times.
I'm both sure AND ignoring.

FrostyJack

Ramocc wrote: »

It's been said several times.
I'm both sure AND ignoring.

I gave several different scenerios of what you are trying to say and you poo poo'd them and then got back on the fence. Come out say it officially for us slow people.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

I gave several different scenerios of what you are trying to say and you poo poo'd them and then got back on the fence. Come out say it officially for us slow people.

You also implied people were idiots and ran away. And then came back.

But fine, I'll repeat myself again.

When I joined this thread, the discussion was about whether the investigators should have tested for explosives. As I have said before, I am not 100% convinced of a theory involving explosives, however I am similarly not 100% convinced of a theory excluding explosives. Exactly what theory I believe is not important to the argument.

With that out of the way, I agree with the other posters in this thread who believe that as explosives may have been involved, they should have been tested for.

One argument for why explosives were not tested for was that there was no evidence of explosions, marks on metal, etc. Now ed2hands has provided videos showing at the very least some evidence of explosions. I also argued that the lack of evidence may have been due the direction the investigation was steered. I believe, along with others, that they should have tested for explosives, regardless of the (alleged) lack of evidence.

However, some people in this thread gave outlandish alternative theories (space lasers and nuclear bombs) and argued that testing for explosives was comparable to checking for these theories.

Then davoxx and I gave plenty of physical facts showing that this argument by exaggeration is invalid. This involved the energy/technology required by lasers and the strength/fallout of nuclear bombs. I also pointed out that the NIST felt the need to simulate explosives, but not space lasers or nuclear bombs.

Another key fact was the amount of explosives required, since some people claimed it would take thousands of tons of explosive. Again, we gave quotes from the NIST report that suggested there a mere 4kg of explosives could have caused the collapse as it did. Not a complete demolition, not blowing the building to smithereens, but simply cause the collapse as it did.

Without admitting that both the argument involving space lasers and nuclear bombs and the claim about thousands of tons of explosives were in fact invalid, certain people then finally read the report for themselves and immediately argued that since the NIST report states categorically that explosives could not have been involved (the final conclusion based on windows and sound), then there was no need to test for explosives.

And continued to bring up space lasers and nuclear bombs, ignoring the physical facts showing the flaw in that argument.

I then pointed out the flaw in this new NIST report argument due to the report coming out SEVERAL YEARS after the time frame for testing, but instead of replying to that point (or the previous points), for some reason some people started to think that this showed I was claiming that there was, 100% without doubt, explosives in the building. They also began to claim to know what I was thinking.

As an aside, repeatedly throughout this thread, certain people have failed to distinguish between an ARGUMENT and a CONCLUSION drawn from that ARGUMENT. So I guess my final point is that disagreeing with an argument does not mean I disagree or agree with any conclusions drawn from that argument. Nor does it say that I disagree or agree with any alternative conclusions.

I hope that suffices as a summary.

FrostyJack

Ramocc wrote: »

I hope that suffices as a summary.

Thanks, it does. I had just complied a list of your quotes which basically says what you say above. I have just come to the conclusion I was blaming you for saying stuff davoxx and a few others were saying. I completely was wrong in my argument with you as I was thinking you were coming from a different place, put it down to sleep deprivation
So basically we believe the same things bar one or 2 things, I have to run to gym and will discuss them when I get back.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

oh you're back again .. did you bring your theory too?

I'm sorry I'm really out of sorts at the moment.

Exactly which NIST report did you take the 4kg claim from?

NCSTAR 1A-9A,

And it's page 26 you say?

I just read it and it says nothing about 4kg or anything about explosives.

I'd really like to see where the exact quote is, because reading the report there doesn't say anything of the sort.

Ramocc

Ramocc wrote: »

However, some people ....

You're grossly misrepresenting my arguments.
Not sure if it's deliberately or because you didn't understand them.

FrostyJack

Di0genes wrote: »

I just read it and it says nothing about 4kg or anything about explosives.

I'd really like to see where the exact quote is, because reading the report there doesn't say anything of the sort.

I had the same problem mate, the page number is back further in the thread, do a search for "4 kg" and it should find it, think it is page 59 on the pdf.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm really out of sorts at the moment.

can you just admit that you don't have one?

Di0genes wrote: »

I'd really like to see where the exact quote is, because reading the report there doesn't say anything of the sort.

did you read the whole report?
do you want to point me to the link you are using for the report?

Ramocc

King Mob wrote: »

You're grossly misrepresenting my arguments.
Not sure if it's deliberately or because you didn't understand them.

Which ones? Quotes please.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

can you just admit that you don't have one?

You clearly are struggling with the basics of the search function still.

did you read the whole report?
do you want to point me to the link you are using for the report?

http://www.nist.gov/publication-portal.cfm?defaultSearch=false&q=wtc+7&authorlist=&researchfield=&seriesName=&datefrom=&dateto=#

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You clearly are struggling with the basics of the search function still.



http://www.nist.gov/publication-portal.cfm?defaultSearch=false&q=wtc+7&authorlist=&researchfield=&seriesName=&datefrom=&dateto=#

i see, you have not mastered the search functionality, and were not able to click through the links.

nor were you able to find the links on this very thread .. but sure what the hell i'm a nice guy/child

here is the link for the document:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

on page 26 of the document, page 68 of the pdf, section 3.3 of the report.

...

3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS
Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set
explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D). As a minimum,
the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it
became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.
Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were
considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure
(including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of
explosives. In the second scenario, the explosive charge was to be placed in the shortest possible time,
which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame.
SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations, shock propagation and
structure loads due to blast and fragments, was used to simulate pressure histories from hypothetical
blasts. The pressure histories were then used to determine whether windows would have broken, which
would have provided visible evidence of a charge detonation to observers outside the building.
SHAMRC has a proven record of accuracy for explosive weights of less than 500 g (1 lb) to more than
4 x 106 kg (4,000 tons). A validated Shard Fly-Out Model (SFOM) was used to predict window
breakage. Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor.
Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of
Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios
would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.
Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive
requirements for window fragility.

26 NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation

Deriving the Probable Collapse Sequence

Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the
building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls,
weld torches to cut column sections, and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and
visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around
more than one column.
Figure 3–1 shows the results for the two shaped charges applied to Column 79 on a tenant floor that was
highly partitioned, such as Floor 12. Nearly all the windows on the northeast section of the floor
subjected to a blast would have been broken, even by the smaller charge. Simulations for a floor that was
not highly partitioned led to more extensive window breakage.

...

and on page 21 of the document, page 63 of the pdf, section 2.4 of the report.

2.4
THE PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE
The following is the NIST account of how the fires in WTC 7 most likely led to the building's collapse.
The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west
faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned
out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. Fires on these six floors grew and spread since they were not
extinguished either by the automatic sprinkler system or by FDNY, because water was not available in
WTC 7. Fires were generally concentrated on the east and north sides of the northeast region beginning
at about 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
As the fires progressed, some of the structural steel began to heat. According to the generally accepted
test standard, ASTM E-119, one of the criteria for establishing the fire resistance rating for a steel column
or floor beam is derived from the time at which, during a standard fire exposure, the average column
temperature exceeds 538 °C (1000 °F) or the average floor beam temperature exceeds 593 °C (1100 °F).
These are temperatures at which there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. Due to the
effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C
(570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C
(1100 °F). The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the
lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400 oC (750 oF), damaging the floor framing
on multiple floors.
The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of
Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately
400 °C (750 °F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining
fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. When steel (or any other metal) is
heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is resisted by columns or other steel members,
forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures of connections.

i can quote the whole report on thread though i think that those of us who read it would be annoyed.

Ramocc

Ramocc wrote: »

Which ones? Quotes please.

Ramocc wrote: »

However, some people in this thread gave outlandish alternative theories (space lasers and nuclear bombs) and argued that testing for explosives was comparable to checking for these theories.

And as I repeatedly stated in clear, unambiguous the actual argument I was making was:
The reason they didn't need to test for explosive was the same for why they didn't test for other outlandish theories. There was no evidence and the theories didn't make sense.

Ramocc wrote: »

Another key fact was the amount of explosives required, since some people claimed it would take thousands of tons of explosive. Again, we gave quotes from the NIST report that suggested there a mere 4kg of explosives could have caused the collapse as it did. Not a complete demolition, not blowing the building to smithereens, but simply cause the collapse as it did.

And this point was an example of how the exact argument (and all of them) you just used can be turned back and made apply to the explosive theory.

Ramocc wrote: »

Then davoxx and I gave plenty of physical facts showing that this argument by exaggeration is invalid. This involved the energy/technology required by lasers and the strength/fallout of nuclear bombs. I also pointed out that the NIST felt the need to simulate explosives, but not space lasers or nuclear bombs.

You saying that the energy requirements for a laser or the overkill of a nuclear bomb making them unlikely is the exact same reasoning I am applying with the thousands of tons of explosives.
These are all extreme ends of theories people actually believe. Some people believe that a laser or a nuke was used to vaporise parts of the building, and this would require massive amounts of energy/ large nuclear device.
Some people believe the exact same thing but with explosives.

And your counterpoint can be used for the silly theories as well, as the too can be modified to be a low powered laser or a tiny nuke being used to sever that one column.

Every half baked argument you bring up against the laser or nuke theory can be used against the explosive one.
That was my point.

Ramocc wrote: »

Without admitting that both the argument involving space lasers and nuclear bombs and the claim about thousands of tons of explosives were in fact invalid, certain people then finally read the report for themselves and immediately argued that since the NIST report states categorically that explosives could not have been involved (the final conclusion based on windows and sound), then there was no need to test for explosives.

No, that wasn't my argument.
Davoxx tried to claim that the NIST said that was a plausible scenario.
Actually reading the report shows that this was not the case not only due to the lack of a deafening sound and the incorrect pattern of broken windows but also due to the fact that they say that planting such a bomb would be almost impossible to do undetected.

Ramocc wrote: »

And continued to bring up space lasers and nuclear bombs, ignoring the physical facts showing the flaw in that argument.

I keep bringing them up because you either don't understand my point or prefer to misrepresent what I'm saying.
Either way the point remains unaddressed.

Geekness1234

This is so fake it's pathetic!