New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

meglome · 16-09-2011 07:27PM

ed2hands wrote: »

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

I may start losing the will to live.

There were people and cameras all over the place near WTC7.

So lets see can you answer some very very basic questions. Other than the buildings fell down what are the other characteristics in common with a controlled demolition?

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 07:32PM

meglome wrote: »

I may start losing the will to live.

There were people and cameras all over the place near WTC7.

So lets see can you answer some very very basic questions. Other than the buildings fell down what are the other characteristics in common with a controlled demolition?

Moot point! Meglome i wish you would admit it was an absolute joke they didn't even test!

Forget about Isreali's or Al Qaeda. It's such a give away.

16-09-2011 07:39PM

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

ed2hands wrote: »

I ask questions.

Yet you can't deal with people asking them of you.

Do you think space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations, Yes or no?
Do you think that the NIST should have tested for them, yes or no?

So either answer the questions or explain why you aren't answering them.

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 07:42PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you can't deal with people asking them of you.

Do you think space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations, Yes or no?
Do you think that the NIST should have tested for them, yes or no?

So either answer the questions or explain why you aren't answering them.

No.
Yes.
Oh FFS!!

I mean no they shouldn't have tested. Oh dear.

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 07:47PM

Space lasers??

Am i going to be banned shortly?

meglome · 16-09-2011 07:54PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Moot point!.

But it's not a moot point, either they had a reason to test or they didn't. They clearly didn't and no amount of reinventing how investigations work will change that.

As king Mob pointed out, many people really believe it was aliens. or space lasers or a nuclear blast. Should they be checking for all of those things? And for all of the other things people think it is without evidence?

ed2hands wrote: »

Meglome i wish you would admit it was an absolute joke they didn't even test!

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

The funny thing is I would have liked them to test for explosive residue, just to try and shut some people up. However I've been around the 'truth' movement long enough to know they would just say the results were faked so the whole thing would be pointless. Already you and davoxx won't even address the most basic things wrong with the controlled demolition theory but you still fully believe it. Also given all the many chemicals that would be stored in the buildings I'd need to be convinced a test for residue would be conclusive.

ed2hands wrote: »

Forget about Isreali's or Al Qaeda. It's such a give away.

Okay so. It should be very easy to give me all the reasons it's a give-away. I suppose we should start with all the evidence of a controlled demolition. Off you go.

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 08:10PM

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.

How Meglome can we test the controlled demolition theory when there was no test for explosives?

I take it you're going to avoid that one too but no probs.

Meglome i'm sorry but i don't swallow the NIST report because they didn't test for explosives. Simple. They didn't even do the test properly ie heat the concrete pads.

Thomas the tank engine fans would have tested for explosives when shown the footage regardless of the fires of hell burning for eternity in any steel framed building.

And you wonder why people like me are curious?

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 08:18PM

meglome wrote: »

. I suppose we should start with all the evidence of a controlled demolition. Off you go.

Now you're being silly.

16-09-2011 08:27PM

ed2hands wrote: »

No.
Yes.
Oh FFS!!

I mean no they shouldn't have tested. Oh dear.

So I'll assume that you believe that the above scenarios are silly because they aren't supported by any evidence and are inherently ridiculous.

Since this is the case, why exactly shouldn't they test for them?

The answer is the same for why they didn't need to and didn't test for explosives.

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 08:48PM

Your silly and unscientific argument of equating that NIST didn't test for explosives is somehow parallel to the fact they didn't test for space lasers shows just how ingrained you are in the debunking/skeptic mindset.

It speaks volumes about your disdain for alternative views and obvious disregard for following the very rules you supposedly subscribe to; which is to to evaluate each and every scenario without pre-supposed bias.

meglome · 16-09-2011 09:38PM

ed2hands wrote: »

How Meglome can we test the controlled demolition theory when there was no test for explosives?

I take it you're going to avoid that one too but no probs.

Meglome i'm sorry but i don't swallow the NIST report because they didn't test for explosives. Simple.

They start an investigation, then strangely they investigate. How do they tell if a plane was brought down by a bomb? They get the pieces and look for damage that was caused by a bomb. The same exact way the NIST people investigated 911. Look at the pieces and see what caused the collapse.

You're fixated by the lack of one test. To even worry about that test there would need to be some evidence of damage caused by explosives but there is no damage from explosives.
Without the damage and other leftovers of explosives then a test would be utterly pointless as it would be impossible for there to be explosives in the first place. Is any of this sinking in?

ed2hands wrote: »

They didn't even do the test properly ie heat the concrete pads.

Right and I'm still waiting for you to explain why that is remotely important.

ed2hands wrote: »

Thomas the tank engine fans would have tested for explosives when shown the footage regardless of the fires of hell burning for eternity in any steel framed building.

I hate to be a broken record but not one piece of the wreckage had explosive damage on it. This is the most basic test and the theory fails right away. How do you think a test would prove anything when there is no damage from explosives in the first place?

ed2hands wrote: »

And you wonder why people like me are curious?

I don't think you're curious at all. We've gone into great detail about why the explosives theory is practically impossible. No damage from explosives = no explosives. I have repeatedly asked you even basic question and you don't answer. You just keep basically saying that an idiot can see it's a controlled demolition but can't answer a basic question about it. So are you curious? if you are then I suggest you tell us how you learned it happened from all the curiosity.

16-09-2011 11:32PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Your silly and unscientific argument of equating that NIST didn't test for explosives is somehow parallel to the fact they didn't test for space lasers shows just how ingrained you are in the debunking/skeptic mindset.

It speaks volumes about your disdain for alternative views and obvious disregard for following the very rules you supposedly subscribe to; which is to to evaluate each and every scenario without pre-supposed bias.

You say that, but can you explain why you don't think the space laser or nuclear bomb explanations are plausible and explain why the NIST should have looked for evidence of them?

I'm holding these explanations to the same standard as the explosives explanation and everything else.

You're the one who's disregarding his own rules.

Daithi 1 · 17-09-2011 01:39PM

King Mob wrote: »

You say that, but can you explain why you don't think the space laser or nuclear bomb explanations are plausible and explain why the NIST should have looked for evidence of them?

I'm holding these explanations to the same standard as the explosives explanation and everything else.

You're the one who's disregarding his own rules.

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUM2VaHaqyE

LOL :pac:

meglome · 17-09-2011 03:21PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

Did you watch the video? There's no mention of explosives whatsoever. The guy asking the questions repeatedly asks loaded questions which Lee Hamilton (vice chairman of 911 commission) disagrees with. This video is shot between the first NIST report and the report they completely a number of years later on building 7 specifically.

The only thing that really happens in this video is a 'truther' being told he's wrong and ignoring it. Now that isn't news.

Di0genes · 17-09-2011 04:10PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

LOL :pac:

Firstly jesus the graphics how bombastic and pompous.

Hamiltion is clearly saving its not the definitive document, much in the same way that a book written a year or so after WW2 is not going to be the definitive account of the war....

The degree of misrepresentation in your statement is breathtaking.

17-09-2011 04:15PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

LOL :pac:

Yea and your explanation assumes your premise without evidence.
And if we are to follow your logic the government must have used space lasers and nuclear bombs as well since there's no other reason why they wouldn't have looking for evidence of those things.

So why do you think they didn't test for space lasers or nuclear bombs?

enno99 · 17-09-2011 04:47PM

meglome wrote: »

Did you watch the video? There's no mention of explosives whatsoever. The guy asking the questions repeatedly asks loaded questions which Lee Hamilton (vice chairman of 911 commission) disagrees with. This video is shot between the first NIST report and the report they completely a number of years later on building 7 specifically.

The only thing that really happens in this video is a 'truther' being told he's wrong and ignoring it. Now that isn't news.

Luke Rudkowski and Dustin D attend the Bipartisan Policy Center's Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations press conference in Washington D.C. on August 31, 2011. Watch Luke ask Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about Philip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission outline, and if that influenced the omission of the Building 7 collapse from the 9/11 Commission's final report. More to come soon of course, stay tuned and subscribe to see Thomas Kean run away from Luke next week.

davoxx · 17-09-2011 04:56PM

meglome wrote: »

Did you watch the video? There's no mention of explosives whatsoever. The guy asking the questions repeatedly asks loaded questions which Lee Hamilton (vice chairman of 911 commission) disagrees with. This video is shot between the first NIST report and the report they completely a number of years later on building 7 specifically.

The only thing that really happens in this video is a 'truther' being told he's wrong and ignoring it. Now that isn't news.

what does the video prove that the guy asking the questions should have asked Lee to check for explosives?

and for all you silly people out there, this was meant to be a terrorist attack, checking for explosives would be an OBVIOUS requirement. I mean it is possible that osama bin laden told other radical recruits to drive vans of explosives or plant explosives in case the planes did not work ...

you can not explain why they did not check for explosives because it is elementary.

i'll skip the fact of who is actually on the 911 commission and how independent they were.

17-09-2011 05:28PM

davoxx wrote: »

and for all you silly people out there, this was meant to be a terrorist attack, checking for explosives would be an OBVIOUS requirement. I mean it is possible that osama bin laden told other radical recruits to drive vans of explosives or plant explosives in case the planes did not work ...

you can not explain why they did not check for explosives because it is elementary.

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

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

meglome · 17-09-2011 05:33PM

enno99 wrote: »

Luke Rudkowski and Dustin D attend the Bipartisan Policy Center's Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations press conference in Washington D.C. on August 31, 2011. Watch Luke ask Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about Philip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission outline, and if that influenced the omission of the Building 7 collapse from the 9/11 Commission's final report.

My mistake... of course it doesn't change the fact he disagree with everything the guy asks.

enno99 wrote: »

More to come soon of course, stay tuned and subscribe to see Thomas Kean run away from Luke next week.

I'm not remotely surprised if anyone runs away. He comes up and basically starts telling people what happened, even though he wasn't there. These people were there so they know exactly what happened, why the hell should they stand there and listen to a guy talking out of his arse. I love it... running away=conspiracy when it's much more likely running away=tired of loons.

davoxx wrote: »

what does the video prove that the guy asking the questions should have asked Lee to check for explosives?

and for all you silly people out there, this was meant to be a terrorist attack, checking for explosives would be an OBVIOUS requirement. I mean it is possible that osama bin laden told other radical recruits to drive vans of explosives or plant explosives in case the planes did not work ...

you can not explain why they did not check for explosives because it is elementary.

i'll skip the fact of who is actually on the 911 commission and how independent they were.

As I said the video proves nothing other than 'truthers' ignore being told they are wrong.

What exactly does "checking for explosives" entail. Let's see... examining the wreckage for suspicious damage, for leftover detcord or other remains, checking all available audio sources for sounds of explosives etc. If they find any of these then it would make sense to test for explosive residue, to see what type of explosive was used. But why on gods green earth would you do a test for anything when you already know as a fact it wasn't there. It's a stunningly simple principal, no damage from explosives = no explosives. Sorry but a child could get this.

Daithi 1 · 17-09-2011 06:11PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you can't deal with people asking them of you.

Do you think space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations, Yes or no?
Do you think that the NIST should have tested for them, yes or no?

So either answer the questions or explain why you aren't answering them.

King Mob wrote: »

You say that, but can you explain why you don't think the space laseror nuclear bomb explanations are plausible and explain why the NIST should have looked for evidence of them?

I'm holding these explanations to the same standard as the explosives explanation and everything else.

You're the one who's disregarding his own rules.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea and your explanation assumes your premise without evidence.
And if we are to follow your logic the government must have used space lasers and nuclear bombs as well since there's no other reason why they wouldn't have looking for evidence of those things.

So why do you think they didn't test for space lasers or nuclear bombs?

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

You get paid for this ?

meglome · 17-09-2011 06:18PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You get paid for this ?

See for anyone following the logic...
There is no evidence for space lasers but I say it's space lasers so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.
There is no evidence for aliens but I say it's aliens so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.
There is no evidence for a nuclear blast but I say it's a nuclear blast so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.
There is no evidence for explosives but I say it's explosives so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.

You following?

17-09-2011 06:23PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You get paid for this ?

I wish.

But can you explain what about the space laser theory is so ridiculous and why it shouldn't be tested for?

I can point to people who genuinely believe that the Towers were destroyed by space based energy weapons. (And interestingly do not believe explosives or thermite could have possibly been used.)

So why exactly should they not test for space lasers?

Daithi 1 · 17-09-2011 06:44PM

King Mob wrote: »

I wish.

But can you explain what about the space laser theory is so ridiculous and why it shouldn't be tested for?

I can point to people who genuinely believe that the Towers were destroyed by space based energy weapons. (And interestingly do not believe explosives or thermite could have possibly been used.)

So why exactly should they not test for space lasers?

I actually kinda feel sorry for you.

17-09-2011 06:50PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I actually kinda feel sorry for you.

Hey, I'm not the one who's dodging questions that might force me to think.

If you'd like to grow up and engage in a discussion that might get you to start examining what you believe, the points are still there for you to try and address.

Daithi 1 · 17-09-2011 06:58PM

King Mob wrote: »

Hey, I'm not the one who's dodging questions that might force me to think.

If you'd like to grow up and engage in a discussion that might get you to start examining what you believe, the points are still there for you to try and address.

Why did a bomb go off in or close to the lobby ?

or should we focus on space lasers ?

17-09-2011 07:04PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Why did a bomb go off in or close to the lobby ?

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

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

Daithi 1 wrote: »

or should we focus on space lasers ?

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

meglome · 17-09-2011 07:07PM

Let me help you out there Daithi1

meglome wrote: »

Here's another one for you. I originally posted this info on a previous thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM

The fire-fighters says 'all the windows were blown out', often quoted to prove there were explosives. But that's not what the footage shows.

So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. A lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building too. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.

But you know I discovered something in the meantime completely by accident. I was looking at the Naudet bothers documentary the one which was narrated by Robert De Niro. In part two (two or three anyway, go check and you'll see it) there's some shots of the firemen arriving at the WTC. In the shot they appear to be breaking the windows with their axes to get access the lobby in numbers. So using the evidence I can surmise that these huge plate glass windows were broken by the plane impact and/or the fire-fighters gaining access.

So I could easily check that the damage in the lobby was not caused by explosives but 'Architects for 911 truth' couldn't. Bunch of liars.

Daithi 1 · 17-09-2011 07:08PM

meglome wrote: »

Where's the evidence that a bomb went off in or near the lobby?

BTW people really do think it was space lasers.

Multiple witnesses stated it. The ground shook, lots of dead folk in the lobby, stuff like that, bomb stuff like, explosions like, like when bombs go off !

17-09-2011 07:18PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Multiple witnesses stated it. The ground shook, lots of dead folk in the lobby, stuff like that, bomb stuff like, explosions like, like when bombs go off !

Which witnesses?
Who said the ground shook and when did it?
Which lobby had dead folk in it?

You keep stating stuff like this but you can't honestly expect people to just take your word for it.

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

New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Comments