New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And they could have possibly used space lasers and nuclear weapons as well, yet no test for them

And yet you cannot explain why they didn't check...

so they failed to test for that as well??
how can you defend their incompetence??
did not check for space lasers which are used in terrorist attacks ....

you do have proof that terrorists use space laser right?
of course you do, so please post it here.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And "sounds like an explosion" does equate to explosives.

that is true, but that is why you check for it, so that you can rule it out.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you think a bomb went off in the lobby?

Any videos or pictures of this?
Can you explain how or why this would fit into an explosive collapse?

I'm not asking you to focus on them, I'm just asking you to answer one simple question.
Why can't you answer it?

asking questions while dodging ones asked of you? seems like a fair way to deny evidence ...

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

so they failed to test for that as well??
how can you defend their incompetence??
did not check for space lasers which are used in terrorist attacks ....

you do have proof that terrorists use space laser right?
of course you do, so please post it here.

Please point to were terrorists have ever used planes as missiles against skyscrapers before?
Or were terrorist were able to sneak tons of explosives into a skyscraper to demolish it entirely?

So we can see that something simply not happening before doesn't rule it out.

And if it did, you'd still have to apply that to the theory you like, meaning that the NIST didn't have to check for explosives.

So is that the only reason you don't believe in the space laser theory and why it shouldn't have been tested for?

Sonofcicero

How I hate the conspiracy theorists! no sympathy, no understanding, driven only by a hatred of the USA. God Bless America (with all its faults and failings it's still a real democracy).

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

that is true, but that is why you check for it, so that you can rule it out.

So then since lots of the twin towers were pulverised we'd have to check for space lasers and nuclear bombs as well, since they are the only things that could have done that?

davoxx wrote: »

asking questions while dodging ones asked of you? seems like a fair way to deny evidence ...

Please point out the questions I've dodged on this thread that weren't stupid or immature and I'll answer them now.

But just to point it out, you are again resorting to the "well so are you" tactic of debate.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Please point to were terrorists have ever used planes as missiles against skyscrapers before?

EXACTLY is wasn't terrorists .. the penny drops ...

but seriously lasers and unicorns, laser mounted on unicorns ... you still can't answer why they did not check for explosives, other than incompetence.

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

EXACTLY is wasn't terrorists .. the penny drops ...

That's not the point I was making. You ignored it entirely because you can't address it.

By your own logic you have to either conclude that your excuse for them not testing for lasers or nuke is invalid or that by applying the same excuse you'd have to agree that there was no reason for them to do the test.

davoxx wrote: »

but seriously lasers and unicorns, laser mounted on unicorns ... you still can't answer why they did not check for explosives, other than incompetence.

I have answered that question several times.
And it's in fact the answer to the question I keep asking.

They didn't test for explosives/space lasers/nukes because there's no evidence to suggest they played a role and those explanations are full of holes and patently silly.

davoxx

Sonofcicero wrote: »

How I hate the conspiracy theorists! no sympathy, no understanding, driven only by a hatred of the USA. God Bless America (with all its faults and failings it's still a real democracy).

hello there mister new user less than ten post spreading his hate.

this forum is not for spreading hate.

but even if you hate me, i still like you ....

because i like gullible people like you, with my sympathy i understand that you are driven by hate of those who are not from the usa. God/Buddha/Allah/Krishna/FSM bless NON America (with non of american faults and failings, it still the only democracy to start an illegal war (and lie about it), assassinate a person in a different county, without informing the sovereign nation).

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out the questions I've dodged on this thread that weren't stupid or immature and I'll answer them now.

i have to point them out again? and now you feel like answering them, though only if you feel they aren't stupid (like checking for explosives when doing an enquiry into 911) or immature (like saying that space laser and unicorns could have destroyed the building) ....

King Mob wrote: »

But just to point it out, you are again resorting
to the "well so are you" tactic of debate.

fair enough i'll accept that you can't meet the higher standards that i hold myself to for evidence and making claims.

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

i have to point them out again? and now you feel like answering them, though only if you feel they aren't stupid (like checking for explosives when doing an enquiry into 911) or immature (like saying that space laser and unicorns could have destroyed the building) ....

I've already pointed to people who actually believe this.

davoxx wrote: »

fair enough i'll accept that you can't meet the higher standards that i hold myself to for evidence and making claims.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435582&postcount=33

Your question here does not make sense.
What exactly do you want me to provide evidence for?
That the NIST didn't test for lasers and nukes?

enno99

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2618796568154709236

Here is a first responder that cleaned up building 7 site

says he saw bodies /drugs

Scott told us that the government video taped most of the clean up at Building 7. That means that somewhere out there is a complete video record for scientific and forensic analysis. Additionally Scott told us that he saw no one inspecting the debris for the purpose of gathering information as to what caused the collapse of Building 7

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

i have to point them out again? and now you feel like answering them, though only if you feel they aren't stupid (like checking for explosives when doing an enquiry into 911) or immature (like saying that space laser and unicorns could have destroyed the building) ....

Anybody can say anything happened... everyone is entitled to their opinion. But evidence leads to what is actually done or not.

I'm getting more and more stunned by the fact you can't see they don't test for things there's no evidence for. You might think they should and good luck to you. But in the real world investigations go where the evidence takes them. A small child could get this point.

Your stance seems to be they ignored the possibility of explosives, but nothing is further from the truth. They found nothing, nada, **** all to show there was any explosives so that's that, done, finito. No amount of you wanting the world to work differently will change those very simple facts.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

I've already pointed to people who actually believe this.

Just to clarify, this thread is about the possibility that explosives may have been involved in 9/11. The question was raised as to why explosives were not tested for.

Explosives and space lasers are not the same. Using explosives to demolish a building is common practice. On the other hand, there have been no recorded incidents of space lasers demolishing a building. It is completely feasible for a group of people to move the amount of explosives required to demolish a building (or even just cause the explosions depicted in the video). On the other hand, an extremely large amount of energy would be required for a space laser to demolish a building, technology which does not exist yet.
Do you understand this difference?

King Mob wrote: »

Your question here does not make sense.
What exactly do you want me to provide evidence for?
That the NIST didn't test for lasers and nukes?

Your argument is that some people somewhere believe space lasers are involved and because no one checked for space lasers, what? That because you expect that most people would not believe in the space laser theory, that you can infer something about the possibility that explosives were involved?

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

Just to clarify, this thread is about the possibility that explosives may have been involved in 9/11. The question was raised as to why explosives were not tested for.

Actually it was started to discuss a clearly fake video, but since it's painfully obvious that the video is fake, you guys have moved on rather than attempt to defend such a silly position.

davoxx wrote: »

Explosives and space lasers are not the same. Using explosives to demolish a building is common practice. On the other hand, there have been no recorded incidents of space lasers demolishing a building. It is completely feasible for a group of people to move the amount of explosives required to demolish a building (or even just cause the explosions depicted in the video). On the other hand, an extremely large amount of energy would be required for a space laser to demolish a building, technology which does not exist yet.
Do you understand this difference?

And all those arguments you just used against the space laser theory can be used against your prefered one.
There's no recorded incidents of terrorists sneaking thousands of tons of explosives into a skyscraper, or smashing planes into them either.
Thousands of tons of explosive would be required to demolish a building.
And if you believe the thermite theory, also relies on technology that doesn't exist yet.

And then there's the nuke theory which you're conveniently forgetting.
A theory that is far more feasible than space lasers and even plani old explosives.

davoxx wrote: »

Your argument is that some people somewhere believe space lasers are involved and because no one checked for space lasers, what? That because you expect that most people would not believe in the space laser theory, that you can infer something about the possibility that explosives were involved?

I've been very clear what my point is. The only reason you can't understand it is because you don't want to think about it.

We think that the NIST did not need to test for explosives for exactly the same reasons you believe that they didn't need to test for space lasers or nukes.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Anybody can say anything happened... everyone is entitled to their opinion. But evidence leads to what is actually done or not.

That everyone includes the media, the investigators, the political leaders. Evidence can be held back/destroyed/altered. Has all the evidence collected in the investigations of 9/11 been released?

meglome wrote: »

I'm getting more and more stunned by the fact you can't see they don't test for things there's no evidence for. You might think they should and good luck to you. But in the real world investigations go where the evidence takes them. A small child could get this point.

Because in the real world all investigations are carried out by professionals who can never be misdirected. And in the real world they are always carried out in the absolute pursuit of the truth and without political or personal motivation. And in the real world people in power never have ulterior motives. And in the real world, governments never lie to the public. Sounds like an argument made by a small child all right.

meglome wrote: »

Your stance seems to be they ignored the possibility of explosives, but nothing is further from the truth. They found nothing, nada, **** all to show there was any explosives so that's that, done, finito. No amount of you wanting the world to work differently will change those very simple facts.

They didn't test for explosives, fact.

And what do you even mean by saying I want the world to work differently?

MrThrifty

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..."

Anyway, my 2-cents is that there could well have been some form of government conspiracy behind 9/11 (not necessarily involving building explosives but possibly just not preventing it based on intelligence at the time), but there ain't a chance in hell of proving this, so just keep an open mind and move on...

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Actually it was started to discuss a clearly fake video, but since it's painfully obvious that the video is fake, you guys have moved on rather than attempt to defend such a silly position.

Ah, the rigorous proof by being painfully obvious approach. Didn't learn that one in Logic 101.

And all those arguments you just used against the space laser theory can be used against your prefered one.
There's no recorded incidents of terrorists sneaking thousands of tons of explosives into a skyscraper, or smashing planes into them either.
Thousands of tons of explosive would be required to demolish a building.

Thousands of tons are required to demolish buildings? Wow, how the people who routinely demolish buildings do their work then? And how did a few fires manage to demolish it then?

And if you believe the thermite theory, also relies on technology that doesn't exist yet.

And if I don't?

And then there's the nuke theory which you're conveniently forgetting.
A theory that is far more feasible than space lasers and even plani old explosives.

Well, if it's even more feasible than demolishing buildings with explosives, which you seem to think requires thousands of tons of explosives, then why don't professional demolishers use nukes?

I've been very clear what my point is. The only reason you can't understand it is because you don't want to think about it.

We think that the NIST did not need to test for explosives for exactly the same reasons you believe that they didn't need to test for space lasers or nukes.

We?

Well, if you think it's takes thousands of tons of explosives to demolish a building, then I can see your point. I've thought about it. And it's wrong.

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

Ah, the rigorous proof by being painfully obvious approach. Didn't learn that one in Logic 101.

So you think that the video is real and totally undoctored?

davoxx wrote: »

Thousands of tons are required to demolish buildings? Wow, how the people who routinely demolish buildings do their work then? And how did a few fires manage to demolish it then?

By clearing out the building, stripping it down and working for months.
And this is all for buildings much smaller than any of the towers.

davoxx wrote: »

And if I don't?

I'd love to know why you don't without using reasoning that equally applies to the thoeries you do buy.

davoxx wrote: »

Well, if it's even more feasible than demolishing buildings with explosives, which you seem to think requires thousands of tons of explosives, then why don't professional demolishers use nukes?

Radioactive fallout? Prohibitive cost?

But again you've tried to misrepresent what I'm typed.
Terrorists planting one nuke per building is far more possible than them somehow planting thousands of tons of explosives without being noticed.

So why didn't they test for nuclear bombs?

davoxx wrote: »

We?

Me, Meglome, anyone with basic common sense?

davoxx wrote: »

Well, if you think it's takes thousands of tons of explosives to demolish a building, then I can see your point. I've thought about it. And it's wrong.

What's wrong?
Do you think they should have tested for stuff there was no evidence for, yes or no?

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

So you think that the video is real and totally undoctored?

I think it's painfully obvious that you haven't given any proof that it isn't.

By clearing out the building, stripping it down and working for months.
And this is all for buildings much smaller than any of the towers.

They clear it for many reasons: to recycle, remove dangerous material, reduce debris etc. But still, thousands of tons? Just for reference, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT. It does not take that much force to cause a skyscraper to collapse. For example, we know that a single plane will do it.

I'd love to know why you don't without using reasoning that equally applies to the thoeries you do buy.

What theories do I buy?
Like thousands of tons of explosive reasoning?

Radioactive fallout? Prohibitive cost?

But again you've tried to misrepresent what I'm typed.
Terrorists planting one nuke per building is far more possible than them somehow planting thousands of tons of explosives without being noticed.

So why didn't they test for nuclear bombs?

Because, it wouldn't take thousands of tons of explosives? Because very few people have access to nuclear weapons? Because unlike explosives, nuclear weapons do weigh tons? A nuclear bomb would've caused an explosion, not a careful collapse? Because there would've been immediately detectable radioactive fallout? Because explosives can be moved in small amounts whereas it would take a relatively large transporter to move a nuclear bomb?

Me, Meglome, anyone with basic common sense?

Will you be using this common sense at any stage? Well, I suppose it is only basic.

What's wrong?
Do you think they should have tested for stuff there was no evidence for, yes or no?

They should test for as many possibilities as they can, based on likelihood and ease of testing. Explosives were possible. Get it?

It seems quite clear that your only argument against the possibility of explosives is that it would take thousands of tons to demolish a building. And as I've said, that's wrong. Use some of that basic common sense and you'll see that.

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

I think it's painfully obvious that you haven't given any proof that it isn't.

And that's not an answer to the question, hence you know that the video is as fake as I do, you simply don't want to admit it.
It's getting tedious trying to pin CTers to answer straight questions.

davoxx wrote: »

They clear it for many reasons: to recycle, remove dangerous material, reduce debris etc. But still, thousands of tons? Just for reference, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT. It does not take that much force to cause a skyscraper to collapse. For example, we know that a single plane will do it.

And one of which is to gain access to important parts of the structure. Which they couldn't do in secret.

davoxx wrote: »

Because, it wouldn't take thousands of tons of explosives? Because very few people have access to nuclear weapons? Because unlike explosives, nuclear weapons do weigh tons? A nuclear bomb would've caused an explosion, not a careful collapse? Because there would've been immediately detectable radioactive fallout? Because explosives can be moved in small amounts whereas it would take a relatively large transporter to move a nuclear bomb?

And again, I can and often have presented many arguments along those line against explosives.
But just because you can explain why it's hard or unlikely doesn't seem to have any impact on what you think is possible.

davoxx wrote: »

They should test for as many possibilities as they can, based on likelihood and ease of testing. Explosives were possible. Get it?

And space lasers and nukes are both possibilities, and testing for them should have been easy, so why didn't they?
What makes these explanations impossible or unlikely, and why doesn't the same apply to your theory?

davoxx wrote: »

It seems quite clear that your only argument against the possibility of explosives is that it would take thousands of tons to demolish a building. And as I've said, that's wrong. Use some of that basic common sense and you'll see that.

It's not my only argument, but you don't read my posts properly, so It's clearly too much to expect you to know my arguments.

enno99

The significance of the video I posted earlier. He seems to agree with Barry Jennings that there were bodies in building 7
Barry also said there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed
NIST ignored him why?
Because they would have to move away from their mandate to show how the building fell from office fires and some structural damage
And contemplate explosives

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

The significance of the video I posted earlier. He seems to agree with Barry Jennings that there were bodies in building 7
Barry also said there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed
NIST ignored him why?
Because they would have to move away from their mandate to show how the building fell from office fires and some structural damage
And contemplate explosives

There were no casualties in WTC7.
There couldn't have been bodies.
No photographic evidence shows these bodies.

His interview was edited and manipulated by a dishonest hack, and Jennings had since said as much.
So how come you're ignoring him?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

There were no casualties in WTC7.
There couldn't have been bodies.
No photographic evidence shows these bodies.

His interview was edited and manipulated by a dishonest hack, and Jennings had since said as much.
So how come you're ignoring him?

your ignoring the full video because you would have to admit it was not edited and be HONEST like you ask of everyone else

Craig Miller secret service agent found in rubble of building 7 post on a government website

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

your ignoring the full video because you would have to admit it was not edited and be HONEST like you ask of everyone else

I have watched the entire interview, it's still edited and dishonestly leading. And Dylan Aveary is a dishonest hack who has since distanced himself from his old work such as this interview.
And then Jennings himself has said that the interview is misleading.

Why are you ignoring what he has to say?

enno99 wrote: »

Craig Miller secret service agent found in rubble of building 7 post on a government website

Source please.
And even if you somehow provide it, you've one guy. One guy does not fill a lobby with bodies.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I have watched the entire interview, it's still edited and dishonestly leading. And Dylan Aveary is a dishonest hack who has since distanced himself from his old work such as this interview.
And then Jennings himself has said that the interview is misleading.

Why are you ignoring what he has to say?

Source please.
And even if you somehow provide it, you've one guy. One guy does not fill a lobby with bodies.

Sorry but the link has been taken down but its been reported on many sites

Avery is not the issue Barry Jennings said what he said he was not misrepresented or misquoted
He could have had a number of reasons to withdraw what he said but the fact remains he said it
Why would he lie for Avery a nobody with a camera and no money to bribe him?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Sorry but the link has been taken down but its been reported on many sites

Ah well in that case I'll just accept what I'm told then and stop asking questions.

enno99 wrote: »

Avery is not the issue Barry Jennings said what he said he was not misrepresented or misquoted
He could have had a number of reasons to withdraw what he said but the fact remains he said it
Why would he lie for Avery a nobody with a camera and no money to bribe him?

And he also said that he was misrepresented, so which should I listen to and which should I ignore?

But hey why should it bother me that Avery has distanced himself from the interview and his other claims....

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And that's not an answer to the question, hence you know that the video is as fake as I do, you simply don't want to admit it.

you know what i know yet you don't understand what i understand ... it is all very confusing.

so proof/evidence count for the video being "fake" = 0
but i need evidence in my post

King Mob wrote: »

Page 36 of the report does not say that the FBI concluded anything. It was the opinion of one field agent who thought it might be a front. Even he didn't conclude anything.

You have nothing to support the idea that the FBI concluded they are a front.

why do i need evidence (that you have to accept) when you don't need any to prove any point you make?

davoxx

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74459298&postcount=141
thousand of tons of explosives ... one nuke = 13000 tons ... which flattened a city ... sorry but i just don't see it

King Mob wrote: »

It's not my only argument, but you don't read my posts properly, so It's clearly too much to expect you to know my arguments.

it's too much for anyone (who is not you) to know and understand them, that is true.







maybe if i had a space laser and some unicorns ....

King Mob

Davoxx your posts are incoherent and immature.
There's no point arguing with you any more when you can't actually discuss something in straight, honest, adult manner.

Maybe you can try again when you're able to deal with the idea that you might be wrong.