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
13567…15

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    The point I'm making is why would they check for explosives.

    coz it was their job to fully investigate what happened.


  • Options
    #63
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    that is a false allegation. i do not recall every stating that.
    you obviously have proof/evidence that i do agree they are nonsense,
    can you please provide me with them so that i can better refresh my recollection.
    Well I gave you fair warning in the post you quoted that if you didn't answer the question I was going to assume you knew the sensible answer.

    But if you don't think that those scenarios are silly, say so.
    If not I'll continue to assume you have a lick of sense.
    davoxx wrote: »
    coz it was their job to fully investigate what happened.
    So why shouldn't they have also tested for space based lasers or nuclear weapons?
    How could they fully investigate what happened if they don't include these possibilities?
    How about testing for holograms? Or the presence of nanobots?


  • Options
    #64
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I gave you fair warning in the post you quoted that if you didn't answer the question I was going to assume you knew the sensible answer.

    thanks for the warning.
    i'll counter with my warning

    unless you can present substantiated evidence that proves your stance before the second passing of the moon under the 10th passage, a terrible curse will be struck that will tell me not to listen to your ramblings .....


  • Options
    #65
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    So since you agree that both of these theories are completely nonsense ...
    davoxx wrote: »
    that is a false allegation. i do not recall every stating that.
    you obviously have proof/evidence that i do agree they are nonsense,
    can you please provide me with them so that i can better refresh my recollection.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I gave you fair warning in the post you quoted that if you didn't answer the question I was going to assume you knew the sensible answer.

    But if you don't think that those scenarios are silly, say so.
    If not I'll continue to assume you have a lick of sense.


    So why shouldn't they have also tested for space based lasers or nuclear weapons?
    How could they fully investigate what happened if they don't include these possibilities?
    How about testing for holograms? Or the presence of nanobots?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    hmm ... once again lacking on the proof/evidence stuff.


  • Options
    #66
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Attempted witty remarks just don't cut it with me. Not very scientific is it KM?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    ed2hands wrote: »
    If an apparent gunshot wound victim is found at the scene of a crime, the investigators are going to look for evidence of the gun or signs.

    What will happen is they will check if it is actually a gunshot wound and then look for the shooter. They won't however assume it's a gunshot wound and then go look for the shooter. And after investigating the crime they certainly won't go looking for a shooter just because some people think they should when there is no evidence for one whatsoever.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Evidence evidence. How my friend do you think looking for evidence starts?.

    In this case the NIST investigators picked over all the wreckage and looked for possible causes. They found nothing that showed damage from explosives.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Frankly i don't have any idea how a court of law works but in saying that i'm highly surprised why NIST didn't test for explosives.

    Well you might also be surprised about the current cost of electricity but that isn't evidence of anything either. And if you know how a court of law works then you'd know they use what there is evidence for. You can stand up in court and claim whatever you like, however they won't take it seriously unless there is any evidence.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    No signs? I'm sorry but have to disagree again there and no disrespect to your point of view..

    Okay what are the other signs for controlled demolition. Weeks of pre-prep, pre-cutting of beams, planting charges, detcord cabling. Then the flashes and dust from the explosives, clear sounds of explosives, and finally a collapse. The only thing I can associate with 911 is the collapse, the rest are not found. So feel free to disagree but I'm happy for you to explain how my thinking is wrong.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    :confused:Because in a fire concrete should heat no?

    It would indeed but how is that relevant?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    George Bush is a liar. I am not associating you with him.
    Please do not associate me with Avery and co.

    Plenty of liars out there and I didn't mention you at all.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Your most valid point and the bone of contention for many; except for the many first responders and witnesses that heard secondary explosions but were ignored in the official report. I just don't know.

    Well I look at it this way, there are scientific studies that show just how off eyewitness testimony can be. So we know that is the case. We also know that most things that could explode or sound like an explosion in a large burning building don't need to be explosives. It could be the office photocopier, a transformer, falling debris... whatever. When there are multiple videos with no explosive sounds before during and after the collapses the eyewitness testimony has been shown to be flawed.


  • Options
    #68
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    In this case the NIST investigators picked over all the wreckage and looked for possible causes. They found nothing that showed damage from explosives.
    that's the same as testing for explosives?


  • Options
    #69
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    .


    hmm ... once again lacking on the proof/evidence stuff.

    That's great and all, but I'm beginning to think that you don't even understand what evidence is.

    I asked you several direct questions which you can't give straight forward answers to.

    Do you believe that space lasers and nuclear weapons are plausible explanations?

    Do you think that they should have tested for them?

    If you can't directly answer simple yes or no questions, there's really no point it trying to engage in adult discussion with you as you are clearly incapable of doing so.


  • Options
    #70
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's great and all, but I'm beginning to think that you don't even understand what evidence is.

    I asked you several direct questions which you can't give straight forward answers to.

    Do you believe that space lasers and nuclear weapons are plausible explanations?

    Do you think that they should have tested for them?

    If you can't directly answer simple yes or no questions, there's really no point it trying to engage in adult discussion with you as you are clearly incapable of doing so.
    you obviously don't .... do i need to post links and that picture again?


  • Options
    #71
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Attempted witty remarks just don't cut it with me. Not very scientific is it KM?

    Yea witty remarks like showing you people who believe in clearly outlandish theories.

    So do you think they are plausible: yes or no?
    Do you think they should be tested for: yes or no?

    If you're going to ignore simple questions I'll assume that you realise the sane answers and why it shows the point that the NIST should have tested for explosive to be silly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    you obviously don't .... do i need to post links and that picture again?

    What links and pictures?
    Why can't you answer yes or no questions?


  • Options
    #73
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    you keep spinning and twisting and turning what was said.

    did they or did they not check for explosives?
    davoxx wrote: »
    coz it was their job to fully investigate what happened.

    Look anything might be possible. The question is why would they check for something when they find no evidence for it. So King Mob is making a very valid point, why not check for anything that is no evidence for... laser beams, giant squid, Martians whatever. Now of course some of those things are more likely than others but sure while they're checking for the thousands of things there was no evidence for what the hell.


  • Options
    #74
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    davoxx wrote: »
    that's the same as testing for explosives?

    It is yea in dreamy dreamy happy lala land.


  • Options
    #75
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    No disrespect Meglome and co.


  • Options
    #76
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    What links and pictures?
    Why can't you answer yes or no questions?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Please point out were I asked for proof.
    I only ask for evidence or for claims to be substantiated or what leads a person to believe something.
    If you don't understand the difference between those and proof, there's very little I can do.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You think?
    Can you substantiate this?


    splitting_hairs.jpg


  • Options
    #77
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    splitting_hairs.jpg
    Davoxx, it's a waste of time trying to engage with you when you can't even answer yes or no questions.

    The fact you can't not only shows the flaw in your most recent argument it also shows that you realise it's flawed but can't bring yourself to admit it.

    The NIST should have tested for explosives as much as they should have for space lasers, nuclear weapons and magical invisible unicorns or any other nonsensical thing for which there's not a scrap of evidence.


  • Options
    #78
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    that's the same as testing for explosives?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    It is yea in dreamy dreamy happy lala land.

    I have to admit it kinda worries me that neither of you can understand why an investigation wouldn't check for things there was no evidence for whatsoever.

    At that rate every Garda investigation could go on for 10 years. Since they'd obviously be checking for things that there was no evidence just cause some people think they should.


  • Options
    #79
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea witty remarks like showing you people who believe in clearly outlandish theories.

    Outlandish? Believe??

    Strawman bull here we go.

    You people? Jeez you're becoming a bit like Jargon Buster there for my liking. As in useless posts. You people?? Oh please...
    King Mob wrote: »
    So do you think they are plausible: yes or no?

    Who?? Who's plausable??
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you think they should be tested for: yes or no?

    What? Explosives? A bit late for that now isn't it?
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you're going to ignore simple questions I'll assume that you realise the sane answers and why it shows the point that the NIST should have tested for explosive to be silly.

    You're silly with your duff humour. Space lasers...
    Oh FFs


  • Options
    #80
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    Look anything might be possible.
    might be or is?
    don't see the relevance os stating that though.
    meglome wrote: »
    The question is why would they check for something when they find no evidence for it.
    does not compute ... why would they look for something when they do not have it? ... why should the check for something that they already know the answer to? ... seriously this line makes no sense.

    you check for something to get evidence ... not check because you have evidence.
    meglome wrote: »
    So King Mob is making a very valid point ...
    no he is not, you might believe him to be, but he is not, hence why he is having a hard time backing it up.
    meglome wrote: »
    laser beams, giant squid, Martians whatever.
    whatever you want it's your call.

    meglome wrote: »
    Now of course some of those things are more likely than others but sure while they're checking for the thousands of things there was no evidence for what the hell.

    again see the flaw, either they checked and found no evidence or they did not check, and if so "why"?


  • Options
    #81
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    I have to admit it kinda worries me that neither of you can understand why an investigation wouldn't check for things there was no evidence for whatsoever.
    it really worries me people are out there than can't see why something should be investigated and how it should be, but then again it does explain a lot.
    meglome wrote: »
    At that rate every Garda investigation could go on for 10 years. Since they'd obviously be checking for things that there was no evidence just cause some people think they should.
    irrelevant ... though some case have been and then it turned out that there was no murder ... but i diverge


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Davoxx, it's a waste of time trying to engage with you when you can't even answer yes or no questions.

    The fact you can't not only shows the flaw in your most recent argument it also shows that you realise it's flawed but can't bring yourself to admit it.

    The NIST should have tested for explosives as much as they should have for space lasers, nuclear weapons and magical invisible unicorns or any other nonsensical thing for which there's not a scrap of evidence for.

    yet you keep replying and not answering anything, just going around in circles ... like looking for unicorns :D
    King Mob wrote: »
    The fact you can't not only shows the flaw in your most recent argument it also shows that you realise it's flawed but can't bring yourself to admit it.
    proof it or be quiet .. seriously and stay quiet.


  • Options
    #83
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    as much as i like unicorns, i have to go out and may not have internet access ... so if you do not get a reply, it does not equate to "silence means you're right"
    thanks.


  • Options
    #84
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Outlandish? Believe??

    Strawman bull here we go.
    It's not a strawman, people actually believe the the towers were destroyed by space lasers or nuclear explosions.
    I provided you a link showing this.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    You people? Jeez you're becoming a bit like Jargon Buster there for my liking. As in useless posts. You people?? Oh please...
    You misread what I wrote:
    Yea witty remarks like showing you(As in you, ed2hands) people who believe in clearly outlandish theories. (as in examples other people who are separate from you and believe different things)
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Who?? Who's plausable??
    The theories that the towers were destroyed by space lasers or nuclear bombs. This was clear you are avoiding the question.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    What? Explosives? A bit late for that now isn't it?
    No, evidence for space lasers and nuclear bombs.
    Again this was clear, you're just trying to avoid the question.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    You're silly with your duff humour. Space lasers...
    Oh FFs
    Well you see I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you could see why those theories were stupid.
    My mistake.


  • Options
    #85
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »

    proof it or be quiet .. seriously and stay quiet.

    You being unable to answer simple questions honestly shows it pretty well.


  • Options
    #86
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    does not compute ... why would they look for something when they do not have it? ... why should the check for something that they already know the answer to? ... seriously this line makes no sense.

    So the Garda arrive at a crime scene, they already know that a truck was purposely driven at high speed into the building and it then collapsed after a fire.

    So they investigate, they go through all the debris making different notes about what they find. They will have some possibilities to work with, fire, crash and fires, crash, crash and perhaps explosives etc etc.

    So once they pick through the rubble they find no evidence for explosives whatsoever, this damage would be very distinctive, detcord would be left, columns would be cut so it would be very easy to rule out.

    After a long investigation they come to their conclusions...

    People: Why didn't you test for explosive residue?
    Garda: Because there was no evidence of any explosives in any of the debris.
    People: That's suspicious.
    Garda: But why?
    People: Because you didn't test for explosive residue.
    Garda: But there was no evidence for explosives whatsoever. There would have to be evidence if they were the cause, it's not possible otherwise.
    People: That's suspicious.
    and round we go...


  • Options
    #87
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Yea now we're all dishonest.

    Great game lads great game..


  • Options
    #88
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    You being unable to answer simple questions honestly shows it pretty well.

    huh? shows what? proves what?

    honestly? now you claim i am not being honest??

    what rubbish, put up or shut up.


  • Options
    #89
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Yea now we're all dishonest.

    Great game lads great game..
    Ed, why aren't you answering the very simple questions I'm asking?
    Just two words is all you need to type.

    And the only plausible reason you could have for not answering is that you realise exactly how and why the only sane answers shows your point to be wrong.

    So by continuing to not answer you're showing just how dishonest you're willing to be to accommodate conspiracy theories.


  • Options
    #90
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not a strawman, people actually believe the the towers were destroyed by space lasers or nuclear explosions.
    I provided you a link showing this.


    You misread what I wrote:



    The theories that the towers were destroyed by space lasers or nuclear bombs. This was clear you are avoiding the question.


    No, evidence for space lasers and nuclear bombs.
    Again this was clear, you're just trying to avoid the question.


    Well you see I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you could see why those theories were stupid.
    My mistake.

    Your biggest mistake KM is not being objectively and scientifically minded to admit that it was a farce that building 7 was not tested for explosives/truck bombs, whatever about the NIST report (which was a farce). Even a child of 12 years old given the facts and shown the footage would decide to test for explosives. You don't have to be Miss Marple to know that.
    That brings me back to a point i made earlier.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ed, why aren't you answering the very simple questions I'm asking?
    Just two words is all you need to type.

    And the only plausible reason you could have for not answering is that you realise exactly how and why the only sane answers shows your point to be wrong.

    So by continuing to not answer you're showing just how dishonest you're willing to be to accommodate conspiracy theories.

    I ask questions.


Advertisement