Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7
Options
Comments
-
-
i never said they were like controlled demolition.
you fail to see the relevance.
explosives are used to take down buildings (controlled or otherwise).
therefore this should have been investigated.
Okay you're not saying it was a controlled demolition. And I fully agree explosives have been used to take down buildings.
But here is where we part ways... they did investigate and found no evidence for explosives. The evidence cannot magically disappear. And if you're saying they somehow enough people were in on it that they managed to hide all this evidence why not just fake a test? You see the problem with your logic at all?0 -
Well not quite. No matter how you look at it there would need to be a lot of explosives, several tons at least for 3 massive buildings it's fair to say. But the amount is mostly irrelevant... you have to overcome how they planted them without being seen by anyone, you have to overcome how there were no sounds of the explosions, how there was no damage from the explosives, how no detcord was found etc etc etc. We can't get past step one so you'll forgive me for personally not being too fussed by the amount.
Don't you have that the wrong way around? You need to know how much explosives are required before you can comment on the difficulty of planting them. But as usual you've assumed you're right in advance with the several tons (why 3 buildings, I don't know) and then drawn more conclusions.
What you don't seem to get is the possibility of the amount of explosives required to cause the collapse as it occurred is NOT THE SAME as the amount required for a complete instantaneous demolition. In fact, as demonstrated conclusively, the NIST thought 4kg was enough.
And before you change your argument and talk about the other conclusions in the NIST report, I am talking here about the amount of explosives first. Once you get over that, then we can discuss the difficulty in planting them, the sound, etc.The only good point he made was that explosives are common in controlled demolition. However since he cannot (or at least hasn't yet) show how the WTC collapses are like a controlled demolition, other than the buildings came down, that's not really relevant. No pre-prep, no sounds, no evidence whatsoever.
It has been pointed in this thread repeatedly that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence (someone said this exact phrase).
Why does he have to show that the collapses were like a controlled demolition? That's not his argument and you know it. You repeatedly add extra terms to someone's theories and then try to debunk them as a whole.The point we were making is they don't test for things that there is no evidence for, like space lasers, like nuclear blasts, like explosives.
And the point he made was that space lasers, nuclear blasts and explosives are very different, hence completely and utterly invalidating your point.And seriously if anyone thinks the CT's would believe a negative explosive residue test they might as well believe in the tooth fairy. After all isn't everyone in on it.
What, are you're claiming that they didn't perform the test because no one would believe it anyway? It's not about convincing the CT's, it's about finding out the truth.
I think there needs to be term for people like you who think all CT's are the same, and must be wrong. How about NCT's, for Non-Conspiracy Theorists, who BELIEVE that all conspiracy theories MUST be wrong.0 -
i like stories like this one where the obvious cause ... the gun shot ... was not the correct answer.
even though you heard a gun shot, further investigation proved it to be wrong.
but thanks for the story, not sure how this relates to proving any of you points, but stories are good!!!
The point of the story was eye witness testimony means frack all as they are not fact. If someone saw the bombs planted or was sitting with Bush as he pressed the detonator button shouting "I just blew up the WTC", that would be good, it would only come down to if the witness was telling the truth or not. Saying they heard something, is not a fact, they may have being mistaken. Video footage of the incident contradicts what the ones who heard a bomb say, ergo they shouldn't even be in the discussion.you know which building we are talking about? clue not the one a plane flew into.
Yes, I said that is the only reference I could find to 4kg using google. You then sent a link to another forum where I could see no link to NIST report.because you can't argue?
because you have no idea what anything means?
because you can only find facts that fit your world view and you can't understand how people are able to prove you wrong??
No because people like you argue hearsay and suggest lack of evidence as evidence. Example 1: They didn't test for explosive therefore explosives must have been used, fact. Example 2: Officer Joe Bloggs says he heard "what sounded like an explosion", guy says he heard an explosion so explosives were used, fact!
A logical examination would say: Example 1: Maybe it was an oversite not to check for explosives persay, but since no evidence actually exisits that a bomb was used, I may go with NIST until I hear otherwise.
Example 2: Guy didn't see bombs planted or see fireballs or anything else that couldn't be explained by a building collapsing, so until I see evidence like primacord, government files, agents come forward etc, I will go with what the guy heard was the building collapsing.Even you have to admit that the NIST quote does well to rebut this statement.
No, after seeing the "evidence" provided it clearly states column 79 could be destroyed by 4kg of explosives. That is 1 column in a building with 100's if not 1000's of them. No where does it say, 1 column was destroyed so the whole building collapsed. Stick to the facts.0 -
But here is where we part ways... they did investigate and found no evidence for explosives. The evidence cannot magically disappear. And if you're saying they somehow enough people were in on it that they managed to hide all this evidence why not just fake a test? You see the problem with your logic at all?
i disagree, they did not test for explosives.
they claim there was no reports of explosions (which is false based on the videos posted earlier)
evidence does not magically disappear, nor does it magically appear.
i'm not saying people were in on it or not , you see the problem with you claiming i said something and then debunking it? this is why your logic is flawed.0 -
Advertisement
-
if it was irrelevant then why mention it?Well not quite. No matter how you look at it there would need to be a lot of explosives, several tons at least for 3 massive buildings it's fair to say and quite probably an awful lot more. But the amount is mostly irrelevant...
argue the points in hand.
build up points one by one0 -
Davoxx said it was the only reason. You see it is not.
And now even your are wrong because the Windows aren't the only other reason.
For example?And since you can't even see or admit that he claimed something that was factually wrong, how can I honestly convince you that the rest of his claim is a lie?
At this stage, I doubt YOU could convince me of anything.Really? Must have missed they in the incoherent rambling.
Really? You even quoted them. And then said you could apply them to the explosives theory, even though they clearly showed the difference between explosives and space lasers/nuclear bombs.
So, you didn't read the posts clearly. Now that you have, are you going to address them? Since you didn't address them now, I seriously doubt you can.And then he DELIBERATELY stated the thousands of joules of energy a space laser would need and drew conclusions based on that.
But this isn't so as they would just need a small accurate beam to take out one column.
Why didn't you say that earlier? Lasers for cutting through mm's of steel have power consumption in the kW. And this right up close to the metal, not from thousands miles up in space. Were you afraid of that answer?
Thousands of joules is quite different to thousands of tons of explosive. Especially since you've stated that you got that figure from CT's in the first place.Any argument he's used against the "silly" explanations can be turned around and used against his explanation.
Sure they can, but you'd be wrong to do so. How can you not understand this?And still this ignores the central point of my argument: there is no evidence to suggest that space lasers/explosives/nuclear devices were used and such an explanation is full of holes and patently silly, therefore there was no need to test for these things.
And still you ignore the point that space lasers/explosives/nuclear devices theories are different, hence you should keep treating them the same. If you think you can argue against the possibility of explosives by itself, then do. Otherwise stop.So your definition of debate involves the other side admitting they were wrong before you'll address their points...
It's better than your definition, which seems to be making illogical deductions/arguments and then ignoring any criticism about them.0 -
It's in the report in the same paragraph as the other examples. Not arsed to retpe them hear since you've shown not interest in the actual point I was making.For example?
And now you've shown you simply don't understand my argument.And still you ignore the point that space lasers/explosives/nuclear devices theories are different, hence you should keep treating them the same. If you think you can argue against the possibility of explosives by itself, then do. Otherwise stop.
I was not arguing in those points that the explosive theory was impossible or anything like that, I was pointing out the reason why explosives were not tested for.
I was extremely clear on this.
You've no interest in the topic at hand, just taking swipes at me.0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »No, after seeing the "evidence" provided it clearly states column 79 could be destroyed by 4kg of explosives. That is 1 column in a building with 100's if not 1000's of them. No where does it say, 1 column was destroyed so the whole building collapsed. Stick to the facts.
From page 39:The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, not the floor failures. If Column 79 had not buckled, due to a larger section or bracing, for instance, the floor failures would not have been sufficient to initiate a progression of failure that would result in global collapse.0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »The point of the story was eye witness testimony means frack all as they are not fact. If someone saw the bombs planted or was sitting with Bush as he pressed the detonator button shouting "I just blew up the WTC", that would be good, it would only come down to if the witness was telling the truth or not. Saying they heard something, is not a fact, they may have being mistaken.
i don't know what to do with that?
so you did not hear a gunshot like sound?? so there was no factual sound that sounded like a gunshot? but if someone saw the gun go off then it would be a fact, but he can not have heard it??
i guess you are trying to say that you can't be visually mistaken, but aurally you can?
so you are not counting eyewitness testimony as facts?
it does not contradict them really to be fair, people did not have cameras rolling before and during the entire event.FrostyJack wrote: »Video footage of the incident contradicts what the ones who heard a bomb say, ergo they shouldn't even be in the discussion.
you expect to hear loud explosions in all the videos, even those that are zoomed in from afar on telescopic lens??
and because of this, they should not check for explosives?0 -
Advertisement
-
It's in the report in the same paragraph as the other examples. Not arsed to retpe them hear since you've shown not interest in the actual point I was making.
But I'm interested in this point, but I guess you have no interest in making any VALID points.
See? Windows and sounds. You can even copy this quote and highlight these other examples. Unless you have another excuse.The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9,
Chapter 5) was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to
damage a critical column in WTC 7. The visual evidence did not show such a breakage pattern on any
floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse
initiation. Views of the northeast corner of WTC 7 at the time of the collapse were obstructed by other
buildings.
The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building.
NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of
the sound of the hypothetical blasts. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and
charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if
propagation were unobstructed by other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter
openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7.
This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than
being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would
have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors
would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been
attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have
extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possibly have had an
additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at
the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast
(NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no
demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001.
I understand your argument, and it's wrong. You were pointing out what you claim is a reason, namely the equal impossiblity of explosives and space lasers/nuclear bombs, It has been shown that argument and hence reason is invalid. You've shown that you simply don't understand this.And now you've shown you simply don't understand my argument.
I was not arguing in those points that the explosive theory was impossible or anything like that, I was pointing out the reason why explosives were not tested for.
I was extremely clear on this.
If you think so.You've no interest in the topic at hand, just taking swipes at me.0 -
did not know you were quoting me ...
did i ever say that? did i ever once say that hearsay and lack of evidence implied something?FrostyJack wrote: »No because people like you argue hearsay and suggest lack of evidence as evidence. Example 1: They didn't test for explosive therefore explosives must have been used, fact. Example 2: Officer Joe Bloggs says he heard "what sounded like an explosion", guy says he heard an explosion so explosives were used, fact!
just so you lack of evidence is evidence of lack of evidence.
ie there was no evidence that you gave a good argument, so you did not give a good argument.
people like you assume incorrectly as fact, then present it as fact and deny the actual facts.
example above quote.
huh??FrostyJack wrote: »A logical examination would say: Example 1: Maybe it was an oversite not to check for explosives persay, but since no evidence actually exisits that a bomb was used, I may go with NIST until I hear otherwise.
you were doing so well and then you failed ..
the above is CORRECTFrostyJack wrote: »A logical examination would say: Example 1: Maybe it was an oversite not to check for explosives
the above is WRONGFrostyJack wrote: »but since no evidence actually exisits that a bomb was used, I may go with NIST until I hear otherwise.
see how you started on the right path but then ended up with a wrong conclusion ... you even used lack of evidence as evidence.0 -
And now you're showing that you have not read the entire thing and have gone even further away from the fact that Davoxx lied.But I'm interested in this point, but I guess you have no interest in making any VALID points.
See? Windows and sounds. You can even copy this quote and highlight these other examples. Unless you have another excuse.
And if we go back another paragraph we find that they say:Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor of the building without detection. Preparations would have included removal column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut columns sections and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff and visitors would have noticed such activities particularly since they would have likely occurred around more than one column.
It's not a reason why I think it's impossible, it's a counter argument in the same vain of the ones you and davoxx think discount the "silly" theories.I understand your argument, and it's wrong. You were pointing out what you claim is a reason, namely the equal impossiblity of explosives and space lasers/nuclear bombs, It has been shown that argument and hence reason is invalid. You've shown that you simply don't understand this.
If you think so.
In fact I believe all of those scenarios are possible, in the strictest sense of the word. However I think they are all as unlikely as each other as there is no evidence to support any of them and each of the theories have massive, massive holes in them.
And hence, there's no reason why the NIST should have tested for explosives any more that space lasers or nukes or anything else for which there was no evidence for.0 -
And now you're showing that you have not read the entire thing and have gone even further away from the fact that Davoxx lied.
You keep calling davoxx a liar without replying to his posts...And if we go back another paragraph we find that they say:Preparations for a blast scenario would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor of the building without detection. Preparations would have included removal column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut columns sections and placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff and visitors would have noticed such activities particularly since they would have likely occurred around more than one column.
But they don't use this in their conclusion, can't you understand that? They simply state it, and even use the terms "almost" and "likely". What I posted was the paragraph (that YOU mentioned) that leads to the conclusion of no explosives. Which is based on sound and windows. You really can't follow logic, can you?It's not a reason why I think it's impossible, it's a counter argument in the same vain of the ones you and davoxx think discount the "silly" theories.
In fact I believe all of those scenarios are possible, in the strictest sense of the word. However I think they are all as unlikely as each other as there is no evidence to support any of them and each of the theories have massive, massive holes in them.
And hence, there's no reason why the NIST should have tested for explosives any more that space lasers or nukes or anything else for which there was no evidence for.
See? This is what YOU THINK. But it was clearly shown to be wrong repeatedly.
And hence, your argument is wrong.0 -
so according to you, it takes thousands of tons of explosive while one plane no even weighing thousand of tons, was able to take the building down without even crashing into it.
yeah i make bad arguments ...
Actually I've made none of those claims....
It's pretty impressive straw man you've made here. You're claiming something as my argument, and rubbishing it in the same breath.also
are you annoyed because of your rubbish posts in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424461&postcount=112 ???
i only say as your first post n this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74468602&postcount=174 was a swipe at me
maybe your buddies need your superior argumentative skills ... but fair play in just jumping in there ...
Not to backseat mod, but I suggest you stop personal attacks, and bringing up other threads.0 -
-
From page 39:
I did not read that before, apologies, I am going to have to research that and come back another time.
I have to question your age here, how can you not follow something as simply put like that? I said I heard a sound which could have been a gunshot or something large and heavy being dropped, it turned out to be a small explosion. If I had of seen the car on fire and saw the explosion, my testimony could have had merit, as it was I was wrong. This is an example of why eye witnesses are unreliable when going by "sound". If you don't get this, I will not respond to anymore of your posts as I am wasting my time.davoxx wrote:i don't know what to do with that?
so you did not hear a gunshot like sound?? so there was no factual sound that sounded like a gunshot? but if someone saw the gun go off then it would be a fact, but he can not have heard it??
i guess you are trying to say that you can't be visually mistaken, but aurally you can?
Not ones that describe what they heard, especially when they say "sounds like". They are not facts they are hearsay. 100 people could be in a room and half could describe a sound totally different to the other 50. It is based on opinion, not fact.so you are not counting eyewitness testimony as facts?
no because the ones with sound do not "sound like explosions"you expect to hear loud explosions in all the videos, even those that are zoomed in from afar on telescopic lens??and because of this, they should not check for explosives?
For the millionth time in the thread they did not check for explosives because there was no fact/evidence of explosives to do so.
Other than a faked video or people saying they heard there was an explosion (which is hearsay and not fact) where is your evidence, no where, ergo you are using hearsay as evidence. Show me the explosive damaged beam, primacord etc, you cant because there is none. You can say they were covered up/hidden but that is a different argument. That is arguing a point without any evidence, which is what you are doing no matter what way you poorly spin it.did i ever say that? did i ever once say that hearsay and lack of evidence implied something?
Where the hell are you facts? You have none. If so ignore all the rest of my post and just answer that.people like you assume incorrectly as fact, then present it as fact and deny the actual facts.
Yes, maybe we agree here.Originally Posted by FrostyJack
A logical examination would say: Example 1: Maybe it was an oversite not to check for explosives
the above is CORRECT
How do you get evidence for something that doesn't exisit? Whether it be a flying spagetti monster or whatever. So say they explained magically that there was no explosives there in such a way you believe them, so the explosive theory is gone, do you now listen to NIST and say right they are now giving a plausable explanation or do you follow the same logic you are using now, the easy way can't be right there must be foul play. Actually your not going to understand this, going by your previous posts, so I don't know why I bother.but since no evidence actually exisits that a bomb was used, I may go with NIST until I hear otherwise.
the above is WRONG0 -
-
FrostyJack wrote: »I did not read that before, apologies, I am going to have to research that and come back another time.
No problem. Like I've said, I want to engage in proper debate and discussion.
But I didn't say the rest of these things, could you fix your quotes?0 -
You can do some really cool (yet sick & twisted) stuff with Abode After Effects.0
-
Advertisement
-
Actually I've made none of those claims....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74471313&postcount=198
methinks you are trying to worm your way out of this now that the good people of JERF will come here and read your nonsense?
sorry for posting links to your ridiculously childish claims where you talk down to people, might have been nice to point the people of JERF there first, but to post this thread when you had no previous involvement?
okay i give up.
i hope you can see where my 4kg claim came from, since you are too lazy to actually read the NIST report but then base your claims after studying 911 ...0 -
wrong forum, you need the video editing forum, this is for CT.Killer Pigeon wrote: »You can do some really cool (yet sick & twisted) stuff with Abode After Effects.0 -
Actually I've made none of those claims....
It's pretty impressive straw man you've made here. You're claiming something as my argument, and rubbishing it in the same breath.
Not to backseat mod, but I suggest you stop personal attacks, and bringing up other threads.I'm sorry for someone beligerantly demanding everyone read posts, and mocking peoples reading comprehension skills, this has got to be one of the most flat out silly comments I've read about 911.
Stundied.
Sorry, that was your actually claim, a fully backed up claim of "flat out silly".
i have no idea what you are doing in this thread so .. it seemed like you were support King Mob's thousand tons, as you replied with my quote to him, so i have to assume that was your stance. otherwise why would you reply to defend his claim without??
tell you what .. make your claim and we'll take it from there, and then you can ignore it like in other threads.0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »I did not read that before, apologies, I am going to have to research that and come back another time.
do i get an apology too?0 -
FrostyJack wrote: »How do you get evidence for something that doesn't exisit? Whether it be a flying spagetti monster or whatever.
Isn't this precisely what testing for explosives would have done? It would have provided evidence that there was no explosives.FrostyJack wrote: »So say they explained magically that there was no explosives there in such a way you believe them, so the explosive theory is gone, do you now listen to NIST and say right they are now giving a plausable explanation or do you follow the same logic you are using now, the easy way can't be right there must be foul play.
I wouldn't believe anything explained magically. But if the explosive theory was debunked in a plausible manner, then that would be the end of it.
Also, when was it said that the NIST didn't give a plausible explanation?
I haven't seen any argument in this thread that "the easy way can't be right there must be foul play". Do you have any quotes to support this claim?
This is the general arguments of all NCT's, ("Non-conspiracy" theorists). That all CT's simply disagree with all simple explanations. I'm going to generalise here are state that all NCT's will refuse to believe anything CT's say, even if they weren't given proof.
Deduction is a simple process, you start off with everything as a possibility, eliminate the impossible and are left with all the possibilities. You can then argue likelihood, etc, but without explicitly disproving them, everything else remains a possibility.FrostyJack wrote: »Actually your not going to understand this, going by your previous posts, so I don't know why I bother.
I feel sorry for davoxx, just because someone thinks you're wrong doesn't mean they don't understand. It could mean, and just think about this for a moment, that you're actually wrong.
To be honest, if I were you, I wouldn't bother either.0 -
Yep. What's your point?You keep calling davoxx a liar without replying to his posts...
Lol, grasping at straws.But they don't use this in their conclusion, can't you understand that? They simply state it, and even use the terms "almost" and "likely". What I posted was the paragraph (that YOU mentioned) that leads to the conclusion of no explosives. Which is based on sound and windows. You really can't follow logic, can you?
Where? Where was it shown that I was wrong?See? This is what YOU THINK. But it was clearly shown to be wrong repeatedly.
And hence, your argument is wrong.
There's no evidence of explosive/space laser/nuke and to think that they might have played a role you have to ignore evidence that is there and the massive holes in the logic.
Why are explosives more possible or likely than the other two scenarios or any other ones that aren't supported by the evidence?
Because space lasers and nukes have never been used by terrorists, you might say?
Well then neither have jet liners or sneaking into buildings and secretly setting demoition charges.
Because space lasers and nukes require fantastic or expensive technology?
well then the explosives must have been cutting edge thermite or noiseless explosive to explain why there's no explosions heard.
Because you need massive power for the lasers or gigantic nukes to destroy the towers?
Well then you need massive amounts of explosives to do the same. Or perhaps you only need a small nuke or a lower powered laser to do the same as what the NIST said fires did.
Or maybe:
Because there's no evidence for space lasers or nuclear weapons?0 -
it's okay ramocc, he can't argue with me now, not that he ever could, and not now that he has been proven wrong.Yep. What's your point?
though it does seem cowardly that he calls me a liar without replying, even though he has lied himself several times on this and other threads.
that's some sphere of ignorance and denial you have locked yourself in King Mob.0 -
Don't you have that the wrong way around? You need to know how much explosives are required before you can comment on the difficulty of planting them. But as usual you've assumed you're right in advance with the several tons (why 3 buildings, I don't know) and then drawn more conclusions.
What you don't seem to get is the possibility of the amount of explosives required to cause the collapse as it occurred is NOT THE SAME as the amount required for a complete instantaneous demolition. In fact, as demonstrated conclusively, the NIST thought 4kg was enough.
And before you change your argument and talk about the other conclusions in the NIST report, I am talking here about the amount of explosives first. Once you get over that, then we can discuss the difficulty in planting them, the sound, etc.
I'll try again. They say it would take 4kg of explosives to blow one column. Now I'm not suggesting that a team would need to bring in all the explosives that a real-life controlled demo team would. I'm not saying that they need to be as particular as they would normally. It's one thing hiding 4kgs of explosives and the hole and the wiring for that, on one column. That's plausible. What's not plausible is tons of explosives, numerous holes, and hundreds of meters of detocrd, and for that damage to go unseen by anyone and for the explosives to make no sound. So if the the difference was 4kg to 20kg then perhaps the amount is relevant as it's plausible to do it (leaving out the lack of sound). However when we're still talking about hundreds to thousands of kg's of explosives then the exact amount is completely irrelevant as it's (for all intents and purposes) not possible.
If there were explosive damage on the steel, if the detord was found, if sounds were recorded, if someone saw something then the discussion about how much explosives would be very very relevant. I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
NIST do say I believe that one column precipitates the collapse of WTC7, that's of course after half the building was on fire for several hours first. So let's make sure we compare like with like.It has been pointed in this thread repeatedly that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence (someone said this exact phrase).
Indeed but they moved every piece of the wreckage and they investigated the entire scene. So how is it physically possible to have explosives and no corresponding damage? Leaving aside the other issues.Why does he have to show that the collapses were like a controlled demolition? That's not his argument and you know it. You repeatedly add extra terms to someone's theories and then try to debunk them as a whole.
Well actually I didn't know it until earlier, mostly he kept repeating they didn't test for explosives. And I kept trying to explain that they investigated the scene then went where the evidence took them. If it didn't take them to explosives then so be it. Not testing for something that can't be there seems pretty logical to me.And the point he made was that space lasers, nuclear blasts and explosives are very different, hence completely and utterly invalidating your point.
And no evidence for any of them which is why I'm perfectly happy they didn't test for them. Which was my point.What, are you're claiming that they didn't perform the test because no one would believe it anyway? It's not about convincing the CT's, it's about finding out the truth.
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.I think there needs to be term for people like you who think all CT's are the same, and must be wrong. How about NCT's, for Non-Conspiracy Theorists, who BELIEVE that all conspiracy theories MUST be wrong.
Oh my belief in conspiracy theorists is from years of discussing different conspiracy theories with them. It from years of reading the very selective way they make their points, years of their misquoting and misrepresenting and years of thier downright lies. I have no idea if they are all the same, I would assume not, but my experience of them is very similar.0 -
read http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74473340&postcount=220
then come back.I'll try again. They say it would take 4kg of explosives to blow one column. Now I'm not suggesting that a team would need to bring in all the explosives that a real-life controlled demo team would. I'm not saying that they need to be as particular as they would normally. It's one thing hiding 4kgs of explosives and the hole and the wiring for that, on one column. That's plausible. What's not plausible is tons of explosives, numerous holes, and hundreds of meters of detocrd, and for that damage to go unseen by anyone and for the explosives to make no sound. So if the the difference was 4kg to 20kg then perhaps the amount is relevant as it's plausible to do it (leaving out the lack of sound). However when we're still talking about hundreds to thousands of kg's of explosives then the exact amount is completely irrelevant as it's (for all intents and purposes) not possible.
If there were explosive damage on the steel, if the detord was found, if sounds were recorded, if someone saw something then the discussion about how much explosives would be very very relevant. I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
NIST do say I believe that one column precipitates the collapse of WTC7, that's of course after half the building was on fire for several hours first. So let's make sure we compare like with like.
Indeed but they moved every piece of the wreckage and they investigated the entire scene. So how is it physically possible to have explosives and no corresponding damage? Leaving aside the other issues.
Well actually I didn't know it until earlier, mostly he kept repeating they didn't test for explosives. And I kept trying to explain that they investigated the scene then went where the evidence took them. If it didn't take them to explosives then so be it. Not testing for something that can't be there seems pretty logical to me.
And no evidence for any of them which is why I'm perfectly happy they didn't test for them. Which was my point.
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.
Oh my belief in conspiracy theorists is from years of discussing different conspiracy theories with them. It from years of reading the very selective way they make their points, years of their misquoting and misrepresenting and years of thier downright lies. I have no idea if they are all the same, I would assume not, but my experience of them is very similar.
i feel sorry for you ramocc, no amount of space lasers and unicorns will help you here ....0 -
Advertisement
-
aside ... i wonder if the lack of replies to my posts mean that i was right?
can i infer that since they had nothing to reply with, they were wrong and just not civil enough to say so?
one wonders ...0
Advertisement