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

24567…15

Comments

  • #32
    jimmynokia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,467 ✭✭✭jimmynokia


    meglome wrote: »
    He might have meant the fake sounds and fake flashes. I'm only guessing though.


    yeah thats what i meant thanks


  • #33
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well then there must have been space lasers and nuclear bombs there do, since that's the only explanation they wouldn't check.

    do you have proof/evidence to the contra?


  • #34
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    jimmynokia wrote: »
    yeah thats what i meant thanks
    ahh, that was not very clear.
    do you you have anything to back up that claim?


  • #35
    ronan45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭ronan45


    stoneill wrote: »
    Doesn't even look like the WTC building.

    lol why should it?


  • #36
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    how many of those 5 things did they look for?
    (P.S. It's none in case you're stuck).

    Ah holy jebus. Thousands of people worked on cleaning up the site and/or looking for evidence. Not a single one has spoken of finding anything like the leftovers of explosives or explosions. Not a single one has spoken out against the NIST report.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    do you have proof/evidence to the contra?

    You really don't get it do you?

    I can say right now that I truly believe that a giant invisible unicorn brought down the WTC buildings and demand that you prove otherwise. In the real world though I'd have to prove that it was a giant invisible unicorn in the first place for people to take my claims seriously and respond.


  • #38
    jimmynokia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,467 ✭✭✭jimmynokia


    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTD8XmIGaEBczhjTzq4cjMp-dnUaaKjrX-KIGhYwDLaHLojpVl


    just like these images FAKE


  • #39
    jimmynokia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,467 ✭✭✭jimmynokia


    davoxx is going to turn around next and say bin landen is doing cartwheels in time square next.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    do you have proof/evidence to the contra?
    Contrary to there being space lasers and nuclear weapons?
    Besides the total lack of evidence? Not much.
    Guess there must have been some then, since you clearly don't understand how evidence and logical inquiry works.


  • #41
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    meglome wrote: »
    Why didn't they check for cheese?

    I dunno kinda seems obvious why.

    I'm sorry but that's not a valid explaination for me.

    I think that NIST should have checked for explosives considering that the building came down more or less exactly like a controlled demolition.

    It was unscientific not to check for explosives. It's a huge red flag. Anyone that questions this is apparently a bat**** tinfoil hat nutjob.
    Why didn't they check for truck bombs???

    NIST didn't even heat up the concrete floor slabs in the model so the whole NIST theory is null and void.

    Everyone asks why the "theorists" or ""truthers" or whatever are so intrepid and ubiquitous. I'll tell you why:

    It's because the 9/11 commission report and NIST report were unscientific and a whitewash. Not a shred of testimony admissable for secondary explosions for instance.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Explosions in the Lobby
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOp8cIT6DA

    Explosions in the Lobby
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4

    Explosions in the Lobby


  • #43
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    jimmynokia wrote: »
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTD8XmIGaEBczhjTzq4cjMp-dnUaaKjrX-KIGhYwDLaHLojpVl


    just like these images FAKE

    so you have the original footage? no? did not thinks so.


  • #44
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    jimmynokia wrote: »
    davoxx is going to turn around next and say bin landen is doing cartwheels in time square next.
    you have no idea what i am going to say.

    if you can't back up your nonsense, please be quiet.


  • #45
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Contrary to there being space lasers and nuclear weapons?
    Besides the total lack of evidence? Not much.
    Guess there must have been some then, since you clearly don't understand how evidence and logical inquiry works.
    so that's a no.

    lack of evidence = evidence??


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74422587&postcount=106
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424470&postcount=113
    replied to in
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424746&postcount=115

    seeing a pattern here i am.


  • #46
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    You really don't get it do you?

    I can say right now that I truly believe that a giant invisible unicorn brought down the WTC buildings and demand that you prove otherwise. In the real world though I'd have to prove that it was a giant invisible unicorn in the first place for people to take my claims seriously and respond.

    but that's exactly what you've been saying!!

    you don't get it. no you really just don't, otherwise you'd answer my questions and requests ...


  • #47
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    Ah holy jebus. Thousands of people worked on cleaning up the site and/or looking for evidence. Not a single one has spoken of finding anything like the leftovers of explosives or explosions. Not a single one has spoken out against the NIST report.

    did NIST check for those 5 things as stated previously?


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    so that's a no.

    lack of evidence = evidence??

    So then do you believe that space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations and the NIST should have checked for them as well?
    If not, why not?


  • #49
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    No they didn't


  • #50
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then do you believe that space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations and the NIST should have checked for them as well?
    If not, why not?

    ahh i see what you trying to do there, but change the subject i shall not.


  • #51
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Space lasers? What an unscientific remark in the context of what we're discussing.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I'm sorry but that's not a valid explaination for me.

    The point I'm making is why would they check for explosives. You are assuming something is amiss and wondering why they didn't check. They on the other hand had no evidence for explosives whatsoever. I have a feeling you have no idea how of court of law works either.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I think that NIST should have checked for explosives considering that the buildling came down more or less exactly like a controlled demolition..

    It came down superficially like a controlled demolition, in that it came down. But none of the other signs or evidence of a controlled demolition are there, none whatsoever.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    It's was unscientific not to check for explosives. It's a huge red flag. Anyone that questions this is apparently a bat**** tinfoil hat nutjob.
    Why didn't they check for truck bombs???

    You're still missing my cheese point then. In an investigation there needs to be a reason to check for something and your personal disbelief doesn't count. I can say that it was explosive cheese that caused the collapses but if there is zero evidence for that why would they check?
    Same with truck bombs, there's no reason to check as there is zero evidence for them or a giant invisible unicorn or a nuclear bast or space aliens or laser beams etc etc.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    NIST didn't even heat up the concrete floor slabs in the model so the whole NIST theory is null and void..

    Why would they heat up concrete?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Everyone asks why the "theorists" or ""truthers" or whatever are so intrepid and ubiquitous. I'll tell you why:

    Nope that's not what I ask. I ask why for people so sure of what happened they continually have to lie, misrepresent and misdirect.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    It's because the 9/11 commission report and NIST report were unscientific and a whitewash. Not a shred of testimony admissable for secondary explosions for instance.

    Eyewitness testimony is always patchy. There are lots of things that sound like explosions but most are not caused by explosives. It's very easy, the sounds of explosions would be on all the video, but there are no sounds of explosions whatsoever.


  • #53
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    did NIST check for those 5 things as stated previously?

    NIST checked for all evidence for the collapse so the answer is obviously yes.


  • #54
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    NIST checked for all evidence for the collapse so the answer is obviously yes.
    ahh thanks, so they obviously checked for explosives!!

    i'd feel a bit better if you could post something to back this up (the five things), i'm skeptical of this statement since before you said:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435715&postcount=37
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435646&postcount=36

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435451&postcount=26
    which would suggest that they should have checked for explosives.
    but then you said:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74434878&postcount=20
    which seems like they did not.

    so ... i'd feel a bit better if you could post something to back this up


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    ahh i see what you trying to do there, but change the subject i shall not.
    It's very much on subject, you just don't want to answer because you know it shows your reasoning to be flawed.

    Should the NIST have tested for space lasers or nuclear bombs?
    If you ignore the question again, I can assume you know the common sense answer and why, just aren't honest enough to admit it.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Space lasers? What an unscientific remark in the context of what we're discussing.
    Why is it out of context? I can point you to people who actually believe that they were used to bring down the towers.
    Why shouldn't the NIST have tested for them?


  • #56
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's very much on subject, you just don't want to answer because you know it shows your reasoning to be flawed.

    Should the NIST have tested for space lasers or nuclear bombs?
    If you ignore the question again, I can assume you know the common sense answer and why, just aren't honest enough to admit it.


    Why is it out of context? I can point you to people who actually believe that they were used to bring down the towers.
    Why shouldn't the NIST have tested for them?

    Well point away so ...


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    Well point away so ...

    http://www.911conspiracy.tv/space_weapons.html

    http://911review.com/errors/wtc/nukes.html

    So since you agree that both of these theories are completely nonsense, and that there is no reason for the NIST to bother to check for them, why is your preferred nonsense theory any different?


  • #58
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    ahh thanks, so they obviously checked for explosives!!

    i'd feel a bit better if you could post something to back this up (the five things), i'm skeptical of this statement since before you said:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435715&postcount=37
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435646&postcount=36

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435451&postcount=26
    which would suggest that they should have checked for explosives.
    but then you said:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74434878&postcount=20
    which seems like they did not.

    so ... i'd feel a bit better if you could post something to back this up

    You really don't get it. They had hundreds of people on site looking at everything from the collapse. They investigated, and from those investigations they could rule certain things in and certain things out.

    So once more with feeling... they checked for all the evidence for the collapse but they didn't follow up with things that there was no evidence for whatsoever. Why not check for radiation effected giant moles... cause there was no evidence for such a thing. It's painfully simple.


  • #59
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


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


  • #60
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    meglome wrote: »
    The point I'm making is why would they check for explosives. You are assuming something is amiss and wondering why they didn't check.

    If an apparent gunshot wound victim is found at the scene of a crime, the investigators are going to look for evidence of the gun or signs.
    meglome wrote: »
    They on the other hand had no evidence for explosives whatsoever. I have a feeling you have no idea how of court of law works either.

    Evidence evidence. How my friend do you think looking for evidence starts?

    Frankly i don't have any idea how a court of law works but in saying that i'm highly surprised why NIST didn't test for explosives.


    meglome wrote: »
    It came down superficially like a controlled demolition, in that it came down. But none of the other signs or evidence of a controlled demolition are there, none whatsoever.

    No signs? I'm sorry but have to disagree again there and no disrespect to your point of view.
    meglome wrote: »
    Why would they heat up concrete?

    :confused:Because in a fire concrete should heat no?
    meglome wrote: »
    Nope that's not what I ask. I ask why for people so sure of what happened they continually have to lie, misrepresent and misdirect.

    George Bush is a liar. I am not associating you with him.
    Please do not associate me with Avery and co.
    meglome wrote: »
    Eyewitness testimony is always patchy. There are lots of things that sound like explosions but most are not caused by explosives. It's very easy, the sounds of explosions would be on all the video, but there are no sounds of explosions whatsoever.

    Your most valid point and the bone of contention for many; except for the many first responders and witnesses that heard secondary explosions but were ignored in the official report. I just don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    You really don't get it. They had hundreds of people on site looking at everything from the collapse. They investigated, and from those investigations they could rule certain things in and certain things out.

    So once more with feeling... they checked for all the evidence for the collapse but they didn't follow up with things that there was no evidence for whatsoever. Why not check for radiation effected giant moles... cause there was no evidence for such a thing. It's painfully simple.

    you keep spinning and twisting and turning what was said.

    did they or did they not check for explosives?


Advertisement