New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Ramocc

King Mob wrote: »

Yep. What's your point?

That you should at least have the decency to reply to his posts.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, grasping at straws.

Not really, I read it, understood it and validated my claim. But yeah, "grasping at straws" is an intelligent reply.

King Mob wrote: »

Where? Where was it shown that I was wrong?

You're not going to understand it anyway, what's the point in showing you, again. But I'll try one more time.

King Mob wrote: »

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.

No evidence, when they didn't check for explosives, does not imply that there was none. If they had checked for explosives, and found none, that would have been evidence of no explosives. Can you see the difference?

No evidence of explosives VS Evidence of no explosives.

King Mob wrote: »

Why are explosives more possible or likely than the other two scenarios or any other ones that aren't supported by the evidence?

Seriously, this has been explained over and over again. davoxx explained it, I quoted his explanation and expanded on it and yet you haven't replied to it. Don't ask questions that have already been answered.

King Mob wrote: »

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.

I might say? How about what I did say?

King Mob wrote: »

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.

There have been claims of explosions being heard. Also, there was a lot of background noise and with the panic, people's memory may not have been accurate.

King Mob wrote: »

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.

FFS, THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives again? Hasn't that argument of yours been completely and utterly destroyed already? Repeatedly?

Whoever said you need gigantic nukes to destroy the towers? You're very good at countering arguments that were never made.

I explained the laser power to you already.

And what's a small nuke? From wikipedia:

The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield equivalent to 10 or 20 tons of TNT (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead).

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe:
Because there's no evidence for space lasers or nuclear weapons?

Now, when you reply to this post as I have no doubt that you will, try to

(1) read the arguments given and not completely ignore them and you have done in the past

and

(2) reply to the arguments given and not make up arguments on my behalf

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

read http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74473340&postcount=220

then come back.

i feel sorry for you ramocc, no amount of space lasers and unicorns will help you here ....

Yes... the building collapsed and it started at a certain point, no problems there.

And as long as you ignore that the building was on fire for several hours and had a bulge in the side and was making sounds of imminent collapse and was expected to collapse by the fire-fighters.

FrostyJack

davoxx wrote: »

do i get an apology too?

Short answer, no.

Ramocc wrote:

Isn't this precisely what testing for explosives would have done? It would have provided evidence that there was no explosives

There already no evidence for explosives, why can't you see this. By completing this test it is irrelivant, though I wouldn't have to have this discussion if they did.

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?

The whole thread is stating that, why do we need explosives if the report said it was the fire and debris?

Deduction is a simple process, you start off with everything as a possibility, eliminate the impossible and are left with all the possibilities.

Wrong, you would be left with near inifinite possiblities example would be people from the future came back with advanced tech knocked them some how without detection. Obviously this is highly unlikely, but we could never disprove it. The way science works is a theory is developed and it is debunked and a new one arises. In this case the theory the damage and fire caused the collapse, which makes sense as there was a fire and a massive building fell beside it, there is evidence for this, you know, facts. Now prove that could not have happened and you win, I will then move onto the explosive theory.

I feel sorry for davoxx, just because someone thinks you're wrong doesn't mean they don't understand.

No because everytime he has discussed my analogies for example he has taken the wrong idea (or deliberatly ignored it).

It could mean, and just think about this for a moment, that you're actually wrong.

I never said I couldn't be wrong, I would really be excited if I was. The facts/evidence don't point to that though, and I have seen NONE yet in this thread on the CT side, just hearsay and saying well they didn't check this or that so, explosives must have been used.

davoxx

FrostyJack wrote: »

Short answer, no.

so you misrepresented what i said, said i was wrong and yet no apology, how very nice of you.

i forgive you. i did not expect an apology from you, based on your posts, but at lest you have confirmed it.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Yes... the building collapsed and it started at a certain point, no problems there.

And as long as you ignore that the building was on fire for several hours and had a bulge in the side and was making sounds of imminent collapse and was expected to collapse by the fire-fighters.

so it collapsed because of column 79 failing which could have been done with 4kg of explosives?

yes or no?

King Mob

Ramocc wrote: »

That you should at least have the decency to reply to his posts.

Tried that for a couple of pages, only got immature nonsense as replies.
It's a waste of time for me to try and engage with him just as it was a waste of time for me to try and make a point to you.

Ramocc wrote: »

No evidence, when they didn't check for explosives, does not imply that there was none. If they had checked for explosives, and found none, that would have been evidence of no explosives. Can you see the difference?

No evidence of explosives VS Evidence of no explosives.

But you see they did check for evidence of explosives, signs of explosive damage, left over detonators etc and found none.
They didn't test for explosive residue.

And again the same argument can be made for any number of fantastical explanation you'd like.

Ramocc wrote: »

Seriously, this has been explained over and over again. davoxx explained it, I quoted his explanation and expanded on it and yet you haven't replied to it. Don't ask questions that have already been answered.

But it hasn't been answered at all.
If it has show me where or answer it now.

Ramocc wrote: »

I might say? How about what I did say?

Like here you've dodged the question and point.
You cannot use that reasoning to determine that explosives are more likely.

Ramocc wrote: »

There have been claims of explosions being heard. Also, there was a lot of background noise and with the panic, people's memory may not have been accurate.

That great, but these are consistent with laser attacks and nuclear explosions as well. (And with fires causing stuff in the building to explode).

Ramocc wrote: »

FFS, THOUSANDS OF TONS of explosives again? Hasn't that argument of yours been completely and utterly destroyed already? Repeatedly?

No, becuase you don't seem to be able to grasp the actual point I'm making.

Ramocc wrote: »

Whoever said you need gigantic nukes to destroy the towers? You're very good at countering arguments that were never made.

Davoxx did. Or at least I think he did, he wasn't very coherent.

Ramocc wrote: »

I explained the laser power to you already.

Yes, and similar arguments have been made against explosives.
That's my point.

FrostyJack

davoxx wrote: »

so you misrepresented what i said, said i was wrong and yet no apology, how very nice of you.

i forgive you. i did not expect an apology from you, based on your posts, but at lest you have confirmed it.

I asked you to provide a link you did not, you provided some link to James Randi forum, I wasted my time reading through it and found nothing then later on you post something. You have not apologised for wasting everyones time with your incoherant rants, so I see no reason to, to you. I apoligised to Ramocc as even if we disagree, he/she has not annoyed me thus far.

davoxx

FrostyJack wrote: »

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.

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.

no because the ones with sound do not "sound like explosions"



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.

Where the hell are you facts? You have none. If so ignore all the rest of my post and just answer that.


Yes, maybe we agree here.

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.

sorry Frosty Jack just saw that you meant to be quoting me.
but now that i know you won't apologise even when you've been proven wrong, i fail to see if i need to reply to you.

you are behaving like a child, which is ironic since you are questioning my age.

yea sure i'm only 13 years old, yet i've out smarted you in every 'claim' you've made, i've read the report before making stupid claims, and have had coherent arguments. shame no one can say the same of you.

Frosty Jack, you lost once you brought age into the debate.

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

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.

How about explosives combined with planted incendiaries? Possibly the explosives may have been planted and detonated only to ensure that the building collapsed. The main arguments against explosives rely on an assumption that had explosives been planted, they would been the sole cause of the collapse.

meglome wrote: »

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.

meglome wrote: »

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.

It appears from various sources that only a fraction of the steel was checked for damage and that clean up started before investigations were complete. Besides, even if someone saw something, or even posted CCTV footage, you NCT's would simply write it off.

meglome wrote: »

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.

The "can't be there" is a claim. Also investigations can be steered in particular directions. Notice the the NIST make no mention of the lack of steel marks/detcord/etc in their report since they investigated years after the event and without access to the remains.

meglome wrote: »

And no evidence for any of them which is why I'm perfectly happy they didn't test for them. Which was my point.

And they were not as likely or possible as the use of explosives so they were not relevant. Which was davoxx's/my point.

meglome wrote: »

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.

So what? Why mention that?

meglome wrote: »

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.

Maybe you should stop discussing with them? After spending some time on this thread, I can say that all NCT's that I've argued with are guilty of these things. Preconceptions and prejudice works both ways.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Davoxx did. Or at least I think he did, he wasn't very coherent.

King Mob, don't quote me, mention me, or even reference me since you have not got the common decency to respond to me.

if you continue to do this i'll post the picture again.

FrostyJack

davoxx wrote: »

sorry Frosty Jack just saw that you meant to be quoting me.
but now that i know you won't apologise even when you've been proven wrong, i fail to see if i need to reply to you.

you are behaving like a child, which is ironic since you are questioning my age.

Show me the link to page 26 of the NIST report and I will apologise, not a quote of it.

Frosty Jack, you lost once you brought age into the debate.

Damn, you mean explosives were used because I brought you immaturity into question? Way to prove my point.

To have an idea where you are coming from, who do you think planted the said explosives and for what reason?

davoxx

FrostyJack wrote: »

Show me the link to page 26 of the NIST report and I will apologise, not a quote of it.


Damn, you mean explosives were used because I brought you immaturity into question? Way to prove my point.

To have an idea where you are coming from, who do you think planted the said explosives and for what reason?

your apology does not matter, it's not worth much from you. not even the effort of copying a link ...

and yes when you start question the posters age, it means you've lost the argument. it was immature to presume that a younger people can not have good valid points as a defence. you should have just argued the points, not give stories of gunshots.

FrostyJack

davoxx wrote: »

and yes when you start question the posters age, it means you've lost the argument. it was immature to presume that a younger people can not have good valid points as a defence. you should have just argued the points, not give stories of gunshots.

The fact you have no evidence or a facts or a point doesn't mean you lost the "argument", very good, you won. The fact you still obviously cannot understand my story and it's relevance then it's not that you are young, it is something else, which is apparent to everyone. I can't remember the exact quote someone said once, always keep an open mind, but not too open your brain falls out.

Ramocc

King Mob wrote: »

Tried that for a couple of pages, only got immature nonsense as replies.
It's a waste of time for me to try and engage with him just as it was a waste of time for me to try and make a point to you.

Indeed, it is a waste of time for you to try a make a point.

0

King Mob wrote: »

But you see they did check for evidence of explosives, signs of explosive damage, left over detonators etc and found none.
They didn't test for explosive residue.

Yay, a point! Although it's already been made. The problem with these checks is that they were not performed on the entirety of the remains. But it's a still point worth discussing, only not with you.

1

King Mob wrote: »

And again the same argument can be made for any number of fantastical explanation you'd like.

Why any number, why not just one?

0

King Mob wrote: »

But it hasn't been answered at all.
If it has show me where or answer it now.

Bah, I'm not bothered to quote this again. You've even cut out the parts of my post that you're quoting right now without answering them. How low can you get?

0 (I'm tempted to give you -1 for this).

King Mob wrote: »

Like here you've dodged the question and point.
You cannot use that reasoning to determine that explosives are more likely.

There's no question, you said I might say something and then argued against it. Stop being so ridiculous.

0

King Mob wrote: »

That great, but these are consistent with laser attacks and nuclear explosions as well. (And with fires causing stuff in the building to explode).

So what?

0

King Mob wrote: »

No, becuase you don't seem to be able to grasp the actual point I'm making.

Because you're not making a valid point. You don't seem to be able to understand this.

0

King Mob wrote: »

Davoxx did. Or at least I think he did, he wasn't very coherent.

Man, you're lack of comprehension astounds me. YOU mentioned a nuclear device, and to try to explain to you why that was a bad argument, davoxx told you that a nuclear device would be thousands of times too powerful. It's not that davoxx isn't coherent, it's that you can't understand basic English.

0

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and similar arguments have been made against explosives.
That's my point.

And they were wrong. I've explained that to you. That's my point.

0


Wow, 1 out of 9. I'm going to stop wasting my time on you until you actually answer what has already been posed to you. In the mean time, I suggest you try reading a physics book, it would really help.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

Show me the link to page 26 of the NIST report and I will apologise, not a quote of it.

Come on, you can't find the report yourself? Even with the exact page number and quote? I fail to see why you'd even say this.

davoxx

Ramocc wrote: »

FrostyJack wrote: »

Show me the link to page 26 of the NIST report and I will apologise, not a quote of it.

Come on, you can't find the report yourself? Even with the exact page number and quote? I fail to see why you'd even say this.

i think he wants to me to print it out, sit down by him, read it with him, get the dictionary out when we hit big words ...

i would have thought that he'd download it and read it, but i guess i know why he won't apologise when he is wrong and when you've proven him wrong ... these crazy NCT denying everything until you break it apart one piece at a time ...

King Mob

Ramocc wrote: »

Wow, 1 out of 9. I'm going to stop wasting my time on you until you actually answer what has already been posed to you. In the mean time, I suggest you try reading a physics book, it would really help.

Lol. Perhaps I should take a course in it or something..

But it's clear now you are about as mature as davoxx.
Any typing I do towards you will be wasted energy.

FrostyJack

Ramocc wrote: »

Come on, you can't find the report yourself? Even with the exact page number and quote? I fail to see why you'd even say this.

I had a quick look and only found the pentegon one, the WTC7 I found on two CT sites, the link was broken.

davoxx wrote:

i would have thought that he'd download it and read it, but i guess i know why he won't apologise when he is wrong and when you've proven him wrong ... these crazy NCT denying everything until you break it apart one piece at a time ...

You haven't broken down anything yet. Saying something could happen isn't the same as saying it did, understand? Why I am I saying this as you don't, for the same reason we keep mentioning nukes and lasers, it goes straight over your head. Not one shred of evidence has been provided on this thread by any CTer, yet you's are still here claiming victory, it is like debating Hannity or one of the Fox and friends. Until you can, I will not waste my time responding to your non-argument. I will find the link myself and read it for my own satisfaction. Good luck.

Ramocc

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Perhaps I should take a course in it or something..

Yes, I do believe you should.

King Mob wrote: »

But it's clear now you are about as mature as davoxx.
Any typing I do towards you will be wasted energy.

Don't worry about the wasted energy, it's not like you'll be able to understand the difference in amounts anyway.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

I had a quick look and only found the pentegon one, the WTC7 I found on two CT sites, the link was broken.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

... for the same reason we keep mentioning nukes and lasers ...

But they're not the same. Why can't any of you NCT's understand this?

FrostyJack

Ramocc wrote: »

But they're not the same. Why can't any of you NCT's understand this?

For the final time, there is no evidence for nukes, no evidence for lasers and no evidence from explosives, therefore there is no reason to check for any of these things. Stop looking for excuses like "well explosives are more likely", this is true but the actual fire/debris is even more likely. Did they test for residue of plane, residue of WTC 1 and 2? No.

Oh and thanks for the link, but at page 26 it says "This page was left intentionally blank". Is this meant to be some kind of joke?

Ah I just found it, it wasn't page 26 of the PDF. I had to use the search function. My bad.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Perhaps I should take a course in it or something..

But it's clear now you are about as mature as davoxx.
Any typing I do towards you will be wasted energy.

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?

King Mob wrote: »

Explain in detail why did they not check for space lasers or fallout from a nuclear blast, and you'll see exactly why they didn't look for explosives.

i feel i have not mentioned this as your mature reply to why they should have tested for explosives.

lacks proof or a single fact, just answering a question with a question.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

For the final time, there is no evidence for nukes, no evidence for lasers and no evidence from explosives, therefore there is no reason to check for any of these things. Stop looking for excuses like "well explosives are more likely", this is true but the actual fire/debris is even more likely. Did they test for residue of plane, residue of WTC 1 and 2? No.

My point has nothing to do with evidence or not. You keep bringing up lasers/nukes as theories so outlandish that it's self-evident why they didn't check for them and then inferring the same about explosives. For the final time, this inference is wrong as the explosive theory is simply not as outlandish (which you seem to agree with). Argue the lack of evidence all you like, but please stop trying to use lasers/nukes in the argument.

FrostyJack wrote: »

Oh and thanks for the link, but at page 26 it says "This page was left intentionally blank". Is this meant to be some kind of joke?

The page numbering in the file is not the same as the document.Page 26 of the document is page 68 of the file.

ed2hands

meglome wrote: »

But it's not a moot point, either they had a reason to test or they didn't.

They had not only a reason but a duty. They failed.

It doesn't matter that they apparently didn't spot any blast damage in that tiny little pile of burnt rubble and dust. You still test to be sure. The biggest crime scene in history and no tests were done.:)

Reasons? Let's see..
The same complex was bombed in '93. That's one reason.
The responders and witnesses testimony. That's another.

Oh! And let's not forget:
The failure of NIST to honestly and properly explain how building 7 fell.

meglome wrote: »

In investigations they test for what they have evidence for. It's damn simple - it's also a fact.

So nobody ever solved a crime on a hunch then? Without finding initial evidence?

meglome wrote: »

Already you and davoxx won't even address the most basic things wrong with the controlled demolition theory but you still fully believe it.

A strawman Meglome. (How surprising on this forum:o.)

I have already said i don't know what happened but am willing to entertain all plausable theories, (but not ones with thousands of tonnes of tnt may i add, nor space lasers etc)

Anyway, i generally just agree with Davoxx and Ramoccs logic and reasoning; they've summed it up very well.

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

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

FrostyJack

A quick scan of the page in question, it says it couldn't be done without people noticing (cutting column sections, removing walls etc), the windows would have been blown out and the noise would have been obvious, but I suppose if you selectively pick what you want from an article you can convince yourself.

Now that is answered can we have the next bit of evidence that points to explosives please?

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

But it's clear now you are about as mature as davoxx.

hell i'll reply anyway ... yup he broke your lies down, then you realised that you need thousand of tons of explosives to knock down a single building, but damn if only i had not made short work of that nonsense ... maybe you can ignore ramocc aswell king mob, that way whenever someone proves you wrong and a liar, you can ignore them and continue to misquote them and say they were wrong without actually facing them in debate.

meglome

Ramocc wrote: »

How about explosives combined with planted incendiaries? Possibly the explosives may have been planted and detonated only to ensure that the building collapsed. The main arguments against explosives rely on an assumption that had explosives been planted, they would been the sole cause of the collapse.

Or how about space lasers or any other thing there's no evidence for. How were these __________ (insert item here) planted, controlled, why didn't the massive fire set them off early. How are there still no sounds of explosives? or leftover evidence? etc etc

I have no problem speculating till the cows come home but the only theory that isn't full of holes is the NIST one.

Ramocc wrote: »

It appears from various sources that only a fraction of the steel was checked for damage and that clean up started before investigations were complete. Besides, even if someone saw something, or even posted CCTV footage, you NCT's would simply write it off.

I would imagine that a straight piece of steel with no specific marks on it wouldn't tell them anything so why do much or any checking. They only need to check a certain amount of relevant/useful pieces. It's not like a plane crash where they can reassemble the pieces now it is it.

People say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Personally I'd settle for a half consistent story, theories that don't directly contradict one another, a willingness to actually look for truth and not just keep talking about it, I'll settle for some evidence, I'll settle for logic. I'd be delighted to see any evidence for whatever we discuss, unfortunately I rarely get it off any CT'er.

Ramocc wrote: »

The "can't be there" is a claim. Also investigations can be steered in particular directions. Notice the the NIST make no mention of the lack of steel marks/detcord/etc in their report since they investigated years after the event and without access to the remains.

So if all these professionals are in on it or are incompetent then we should be suspicious. NIST make no mention of space lasers as they weren't found either. How many things that weren't there should they list?

Ramocc wrote: »

And they were not as likely or possible as the use of explosives so they were not relevant. Which was davoxx's/my point.

I'm not sure what his point was really, he doesn't answer direct questions. No one is arguing that all things are as likely as each other. The bottom line is if there's no evidence for something then there's no evidence.

Ramocc wrote: »

So what? Why mention that?

You asked

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.

And I replied that I wasn't saying that and explained what I was saying.

Ramocc wrote: »

Maybe you should stop discussing with them? After spending some time on this thread, I can say that all NCT's that I've argued with are guilty of these things. Preconceptions and prejudice works both ways.

I do stop discussing it, I take months off to regain my sanity. I am willing to hear anybody out as long as they have some reasonable backup for it. Sadly that nearly always comes from the anti-CT crowd. The most fascinating thing for me is when people ask CT'ers what exactly they think happened. I have rarely ever seen a straight answer.

Ramocc

FrostyJack wrote: »

A quick scan of the page in question, it says it couldn't be done without people noticing (cutting column sections, removing walls etc), the windows would have been blown out and the noise would have been obvious, but I suppose if you selectively pick what you want from an article you can convince yourself.

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

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

FrostyJack wrote: »

Now that is answered can we have the next bit of evidence that points to explosives please?

Like I've been saying, this is about drawing definitive conclusions from lack of evidence.

Here's another point for you though, the NIST only concluded several years later that explosives were not used, but the tests would've been carried much sooner than that.

Ramocc

meglome wrote: »

Or how about space lasers or any other thing there's no evidence for. How were these __________ (insert item here) planted, controlled, why didn't the massive fire set them off early. How are there still no sounds of explosives? or leftover evidence? etc etc

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

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

meglome wrote: »

I have no problem speculating till the cows come home but the only theory that isn't full of holes is the NIST one.

Sure, if you say so.

meglome wrote: »

I would imagine that a straight piece of steel with no specific marks on it wouldn't tell them anything so why do much or any checking. They only need to check a certain amount of relevant/useful pieces. It's not like a plane crash where they can reassemble the pieces now it is it.

No, the point here is that only a fraction of the metal was even delivered to the inspection site. Every single piece should have been inspected, that's how rigorous investigations should be carried out. Especially since directly after the incident, no one could have known the exact causes so soon.

meglome wrote: »

People say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Personally I'd settle for a half consistent story, theories that don't directly contradict one another, a willingness to actually look for truth and not just keep talking about it, I'll settle for some evidence, I'll settle for logic. I'd be delighted to see any evidence for whatever we discuss, unfortunately I rarely get it off any CT'er.

Generalise, generalise, generalise. This willingness to settle for a half consistent story is precisely the problem with NCT'ers. Face it, you won't accept any evidence or logic that doesn't agree with the mainstream theory.

meglome wrote: »

So if all these professionals are in on it or are incompetent then we should be suspicious. NIST make no mention of space lasers as they weren't found either. How many things that weren't there should they list?

So the NIST specifically run a simulation for explosives and yet make no mention of the lack of explosive marks? And you're putting that stupid space laser argument here again? They should mention things relevant to explosives in the section about explosives, no?

And my point here, which you've completely failed to grasp, is that they didn't even examine the metal for marks.

meglome wrote: »

I'm not sure what his point was really, he doesn't answer direct questions. No one is arguing that all things are as likely as each other. The bottom line is if there's no evidence for something then there's no evidence.

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

And now you jump to a bottom line ignoring all the time you've wasted with the space laser/nuclear bomb arguments.

meglome wrote: »

You asked

And I replied that I wasn't saying that and explained what I was saying.

And I asked why you mentioned it. Never mind though, I'm not expecting you to answer direct questions, since you never do.

meglome wrote: »

I do stop discussing it, I take months off to regain my sanity. I am willing to hear anybody out as long as they have some reasonable backup for it. Sadly that nearly always comes from the anti-CT crowd. The most fascinating thing for me is when people ask CT'ers what exactly they think happened. I have rarely ever seen a straight answer.

Like I said, I feel the same thing about the NCT crowd. They always have every answer to any possible contradiction in the mainstream theory but can't accept any other theory without it being absolutely perfect.