New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

King Mob wrote: »

And as I repeatedly stated in clear, unambiguous the actual argument I was making was:
The reason they didn't need to test for explosive was the same for why they didn't test for other outlandish theories. There was no evidence and the theories didn't make sense.

Can you even read? My summary of your argument is exactly what you wrote. How did I misrepresent you here? You don't like that I disagree with your argument, fine. But don't lie.

King Mob wrote: »

And this point was an example of how the exact argument (and all of them) you just used can be turned back and made apply to the explosive theory.

Huh? What on earth are you saying here? That every argument can be used against the explosive theory? Does that even make sense inside your head?

King Mob wrote: »

You saying that the energy requirements for a laser or the overkill of a nuclear bomb making them unlikely is the exact same reasoning I am applying with the thousands of tons of explosives.
These are all extreme ends of theories people actually believe. Some people believe that a laser or a nuke was used to vaporise parts of the building, and this would require massive amounts of energy/ large nuclear device.
Some people believe the exact same thing but with explosives.

Wait, did I misrepresent you here or not? It's hard to follow what you're claiming.

King Mob wrote: »

And your counterpoint can be used for the silly theories as well, as the too can be modified to be a low powered laser or a tiny nuke being used to sever that one column.

We gave actual values for a laser operating mm's away from a thin sheet of metal. A space laser would have to be miles up in space, operating through the atmosphere. Remember?
We also gave the MINIMUM power rating of a nuclear bomb. None of this "tiny nuke" nonsense.

And again, where did I misrepresent you?

King Mob wrote: »

Every half baked argument you bring up against the laser or nuke theory can be used against the explosive one.
That was my point.

You call physical facts, that you haven't countered, half-baked? And then somehow physical facts specifically about space lasers and nuclear bombs can be used against explosives?

And once again, how did I misrepresent you?

King Mob wrote: »

No, that wasn't my argument.
Davoxx tried to claim that the NIST said that was a plausible scenario.
Actually reading the report shows that this was not the case not only due to the lack of a deafening sound and the incorrect pattern of broken windows but also due to the fact that they say that planting such a bomb would be almost impossible to do undetected.

Again, you're confused. We were originally arguing over the 4kg of explosives, instead of the thousands of tons you KEPT stating. You starting stating that the NIST concluded it was an impossible scenario in an argument about testing for explosives. Which is exactly what I summarized.

King Mob wrote: »

I keep bringing them up because you either don't understand my point or prefer to misrepresent what I'm saying.
Either way the point remains unaddressed.

It's been addressed over and over and over again. Get over it.

You're half arguing that I misrepresented you, when it's clear I summarized your arguments perfectly. And you're half arguing my points in between, without countering the physical facts given.

Everyone cut out the cattiness. There'll be no more warnings, only bans.

davoxx wrote: »

sorry there Divorce Referendum, i missed your contribution to the thread, i apologise. i honesty don't remember it ... can you show me what it was and i promise i will read it.

I am discussing the NIST report as you can see i am one of the few people that read it.

I stated that NIST stated that a 4kg blast could bring down NTC7 ...

Then i spent the rest of the thread trying to convince people it did.

i wouldn't mind it if you had just said "I would say he is referring to the Thread title : 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7."
as his post seemed to state that the NIST report which we were debating over was false ... you can clearly see that this was the main point why people believe or did not believe testing for explosives was required.

I'm sorry i failed to see your post, can you post the post number for it?

No you are fine I know what you think of my post already:). That statement you have in bold is your statement. Nowhere does Nist state that the results of this scenario of a 4kg explosive charge would bring down the building. NISTs statement

This scenario involved preliminary cutting of
Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios
would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection

Cutting of the column doesnt seem to be in your statement and neither does the fact that it was using 4kg of explosives to avoid a detection in its hypothectical situation, yet the sound blast from this charge was 140db quite loud imo opinion to be noticed by no one in an urban setting. Even the hastily worked video in the op's post doesnt include this blast. The fact that such a blast would have broken all the windows on the northeast section is an another issue for your statement.

davoxx wrote: »

no i can't find your initial post contributing to this thread .. i'm being serious, can you quote it? you know before you referenced Geekness1234 for him actually making a better contribution than me.

before i reply to you, can you confirm that:
1) you read the report (the complete NIST report)
2) you read the entire thread (all the posts)

thanks.

Yes I can confirm and my post still stands irrespective.

davoxx wrote: »

which post?
i want to be sure i've read all of your contribution to this thread before i give a reply.

Looking back at it it was in the thread Architects and Engineers where enno99 initially posted the video. Daithi1 then masterfully started a whole new thread for it. Apologies i thought it was in this mega thread. ps you wont be astounded by my post;)

King Mob wrote: »

Because you are trying to make it sound like I'm presenting the silly theories as probable, were as I'm saying that they are all improbable due to lack of evidence and sense.

How did you arrive at that from my summary? Or indeed anything I've said?

Ramocc wrote: »

However, some people in this thread gave outlandish alternative theories (space lasers and nuclear bombs) and argued that testing for explosives was comparable to checking for these theories.

^^^ Just for reference, this is what you quoted.

King Mob wrote: »

Every argument you have used and can use to explain why the two silly theories are impossible can be similarly be used against the explosive theory.

That's a really vague argument. I'd prefer if you explained exactly clearly which arguments you believe should be used against the explosive theory. Then I can argue against each one individually.

King Mob wrote: »

It's an example of how an argument you used against the silly theories can be used against explosives.

You haven't explained how I misrepresented you, but whatever.

Ah, but you're using the argument that I used against silly theories against the thousands of tons of explosives theory that you claim to have found on some other thread somewhere. But not the much smaller 4kg of explosives theory. So it doesn't apply here. You're making an argument against the thousands of tons of explosives theory and then incorrectly drawing conclusions about the much smaller 4kg of explosives theory. (Explanation 1)

Just saying "against explosives" is misleading.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, making them improbable.
And your absolute minimum for explosives (4kg) still creates a very noticeable bang. (140dB at 1km.)
Again your own argument applies to the explosive theory.

You haven't explained how I misrepresented you, but whatever.

My argument was about lasers and nuclear bombs. How does the power required for lasers to cut through metal from a very small distance apply to explosives? Similarly, how does the minimum power of a nuclear bomb apply to explosives? That was my argument against the possibility of space lasers and nuclear bombs. The physical properties of space lasers and nuclear bombs. The argument said nothing about explosives. It didn't even contain the word explosive in it.

Now your second argument here was about the bang. That's a fair argument. I'm not going argue this one here, I've discussed it before.

King Mob wrote: »

As I said, not getting my point and trying to make it seem like I'm saying the silly theories are viable.

I never ever said that you said the silly theories were viable. Not once. Not even implied it. Not even slightly hinted that you might have even considered the possibility that they were viable. Nope, I don't think you can find a single thing I've written that ever construed in even the loosest of terms that you for one minute suggested the silly theories are viable.

King Mob wrote: »

What physical facts exactly?
The explosion sounds reported but not recorded?
Well they could be the lasers bursting through the floors, or the ignition charges of a nuclear device.
And how else do you explain all the dust from the buildings if stuff wasn't vaporised?
Or how about molten metal? Explosives don't explain that.

(note: I don't actually believe these facts to be indicative of the silly theories, they are just a illustration of how for ever piece of evidence you have for explosives, there's one for nukes or lasers. And they all have simple, non-conspiracy explanations.)

You haven't explained how I misrepresented you, but whatever.

The physical facts pertaining to space lasers and nuclear bombs?

Ah, but lasers can cause molten metal, therefore lasers MUST have been involved. And vacuum cleaner bags contain dust, therefore it must have been thousands of vacuum cleaners exploding, but not from explosives (since there's no evidence of that), rather from being overfilled. You know, like you see in cartoons. (note: I don't actually believe these ... statements).

I have evidence for explosives? That's a new one on me. Again, I'm pretty certain I never said that, but feel free to find it for me.

King Mob wrote: »

Except that davoxx claimed that the NIST said such a scenario was possible, when the actual report said otherwise.
Forgive me for actually reading what's in the report.

Firstly, davoxx and I were using the report to show that 4kg of explosives were needed, not thousands of tons. This was important since it seperated the explosive theory from the nuclear bomb/space laser theories. See (Explanation 1).

Secondly, what I argued was that the report came out YEARS AFTER the tests would've been carried out. And therefore, the conclusions reached by it should not be applied to the initial examination. In fact, since the NIST felt the need to simulate explosives and not space lasers or nuclear bombs, it only strengthens the claim that they should have tested for explosives originally. You've replied to neither point yet.

You seem to be arguing against the explosives theory in general one minute, which is fine, but don't argue with me about it, that's not what I'm discussing. And then you argue the next minute that there was no reason to test for explosives, which is what I and others are discussing. But in that case, at least respond to my previous arguments.

No one else seems to have any problems with my summary. Even FrostyJack who's been arguing on your side accepted it. And I'm just talking about the summary here, nothing else.

davoxx wrote: »

ahh so it was in an different thread, i know i would not have missed it.

but that also explains:



please read all posts from this thread and in one of my posts, you will see my statement and how is is backed up by the contents in the NIST report.

No i read it and you havent backed it up. You quoted from two different sections you crafty bugger. Try harder the next time:)

This looks to be a far more credible video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXUGI4aVIAc
It's a trailer for a new documentary where 1500 architects and engineers and over 12,000 other scientists etc. signed a petition calling for a scientific investigation because they don't believe the planes could have caused the damage.

I don't know, honestly. Funny, how does one get an intelligent person to ignore facts, or to overlook something that just doesn't seem right... call it a conspiracy.

Is it so incredible that such a shady person, with unlimited power, as George W. Bush could have orchestrated an event like this that gave an excuse which led to two US invasions (to date) of very resource rich countries? Rumsfeld is on record saying in the middle of this, while people were burning in the buildings, on 9/11 "Lets bomb Iraq".

Or is the more credible story the one where Osama Bin Laden trained 12 or so Muslim extremists to become pilots, and to perfectly fly into two sky scrapers causing precisely enough damage to destroy all WTC buildings which led to two US invasions of other Muslim nations (to date)?

Gullibility can also lead a person to be biased against a conspiracy because it's a conspiracy. This doesn't belong in the same category as the moon landings or Aliens at Roswell, or the Illuminati bullsh*t, the whole world knows, whether they admit it or not that something doesn't add up here. Osama Bin Laden had ties to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan while the retaliation was dished out to Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not an expert and am yet to be convinced either way.

davoxx wrote: »

This should be obvious.
4kg can (Hypothectically) buckle column 79
and
the buckling of column 79 took down the building.

mhhh
....
....



....
....

oh yeah ....

therefore the 4kg of explosives can take down wTC7 as stated in the NIST report

simples.

How do you know that? It doesnt say it in the Nist report sooooo...... is that not your entire argument?