New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Divorce Referendum · 21-09-2011 12:48AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Your flaw is in bold there. It doesnt state its the 1kg test that they are talking about when they say it 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. As you say the maths dont add up. So I would say the the 9lb(4kg) test is what they are talking about. We can only assume. My statement still stands.

davoxx wrote: »

be easier to proof your point to him rather than trying to wind him up ... he's not as easy going as i am ...

I just did dum dum. Putting you on ignore for persistent trolling.

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 12:49AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Your flaw is in bold there. It doesnt state its the 1kg test that they are talking about when they say it 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. As you say the maths dont add up. So I would say the the 9lb(4kg) test is what they are talking about. We can only assume. My statement still stands.

Wow, why didn't you spout this crap in the first place.

You can assume wrong all you want. It's pretty clear if you read the report that they are referring to the 1kg blast. The line before, which I probably have quoted since you need the extra help, states:

Nearly all the windows on the northeast section of the floor subjected to a blast would have been broken, even by the smaller charge. Simulations for a floor that was not highly partitioned led to more extensive window breakage.

As I said, the maths probably fails to add up in terms of lb/kg conversion, since 9lb is not exactly 4kg and 2lb is not exactly 1kg in the first place.

Sure your statements still stands, but only in your head where after all anything is possible.

davoxx · 21-09-2011 12:51AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I just did dum dum. Putting you on ignore for persistent trolling.

could have just explained your point of "conclusion first then picking parts from a report to support it".

ah well lets be honest no major loss, came in to defend a NCT left have being proven an NCT.

Divorce Referendum · 21-09-2011 12:57AM

Ramocc wrote: »

Wow, why didn't you spout this crap in the first place.

You can assume wrong all you want. It's pretty clear if you read the report that they are referring to the 1kg blast. The line before, which I probably have quoted since you need the extra help, states:

As I said, the maths probably fails to add up in terms of lb/kg conversion, since 9lb is not exactly 4kg and 2lb is not exactly 1kg in the first place.

Sure your statements still stands, but only in your head where after all anything is possible.

Yes but it shows the two simulations in Fig 3.1 after that statement you posted and then continues on but doesnt mention which one they are talking about. Its not clear to be honest and the real world you have to be sure. Im not sure why NIST would have problems with percentages.

ed2hands · 21-09-2011 12:58AM

@ Cynical Apathy:

Nice post. Here's the full movie. (The guy at 23.37 sort of sums up the whole thing very nicely)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

davoxx · 21-09-2011 01:03AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Yes but it shows the two simulations in Fig 3.1 after that statement you posted and then continues on but doesnt mention which one they are talking about. Its not clear to be honest and the real world you have to be sure. Im not sure why NIST would have problems with percentages.

are you saying that the NIST report is rubbish? wink wink

Divorce Referendum · 21-09-2011 01:06AM

ed2hands wrote: »

Don't hold your breath Davoxx.

He wouldnt know how.

meglome · 21-09-2011 01:27AM

Ramocc wrote: »

Of course not, silly. No one said it was.

I witnessed a bomb explode, it sounded exactly "like a car crash". Was that a car crash too?

How many people have heard an actual car crash? I mean more than a small bump. Not too many. But how many people have heard the many fake hollywood explosion sounds? Most people would be my guess.

Ramocc wrote: »

The NCT'ists in this thread have all repeatedly claimed that no one heard anything "like an explosion". And now you've been proven wrong, with links/references/all that stuff you kept screaming for. Now you say that it may not have been explosives. Well, it may have been. So there.

Nobody is claiming people didn't hear things that sounded 'like an explosion'. I have never once suggested that people didn't say that they heard something 'like an explosion'. In fact I'll go further and say I'm confident that people did hear sounds they thought were 'like an explosion'.

I'd like to introduce to you to the concept of a simile...
SIMILE: A simile is a figure of speech that directly compares two different things, usually by employing the words "like", "as", or "than". Even though both similes and metaphors are forms of comparison, similes indirectly compare the two ideas and allow them to remain distinct in spite of their similarities, whereas metaphors compare two things directly. For instance, a simile that compares a person with a bullet would go as follows: "Chris was a record-setting runner as fast as a speeding bullet." A metaphor might read something like, "When Chris ran, he was a speeding bullet racing along the track."

NIST and the sceptics are saying very clearly that no one heard any explosives (or explosions from explosives). Explosives are very loud, standing nearby would be enough to render you permanently deaf. Even one 4kg bomb (for one column) would be clear as day over a kilometre away and would blow out all the windows in the area. You seem happy to accept the NIST report when they say that the failure of one column precipitated the collapse (after all the fires of course). But want to ignore the elephant in the room that the sounds of even a small explosive device would be heard a long way off and most importantly would have been recorded by numerous devices.

Ramocc wrote: »

I fail to see what's so difficult to understand here. Lot's of things, perhaps hundreds of things, could have exploded when burned or crashed to the ground, etc etc and not one of them need be some of them COULD have been caused by explosives.

Well no they couldn't, as the numerous video recording would have picked them up.

Ramocc wrote: »

Remember, the NIST report came out years after the first investigation team should have tested for explosive residue.

Indeed, as they wanted to ensure they understood the collapse. Understanding the collapse doesn't mean they can't rule out explosives pretty quickly.

Ramocc wrote: »

Indeed. Like the physics of space lasers and nuclear bombs.

Do you want to explain how the percussive sound of even a small amount of explosives wouldn't be recorded on every single piece of video footage?

You know it's funny you say it's "quite easy to plant/controlled such devices, you know, with technologies like mobile phones, radio transmitters" but you don't have one shred of evidence for that. (Not that it explains away the lack of the sounds anyway). You can't even show another building in history that this happened to. You are critical and suspicious of the NIST report but your own theories are far fetched (perhaps impossible) and without foundation. So yes it would have been nice if NIST tested for explosives residue, but that isn't evidence of anything nor is it even suspicious given there were no other signs of explosives whatsoever. Your theories are even more far fetched once we include WTC1 & 2, or did the planes and fires bring them down and it was only explosives that were placed in WTC7?

Divorce Referendum · 21-09-2011 01:30AM

Ramocc How do you deduct the closing statement of that chapter?

Therefore the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC7 on September 11

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 01:45AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Ramocc How do you deduct the closing statement of that chapter?

Do you mean, "How do you deduce the ..." or are you still being smart.

They are referring to their statements (not being disputed here) that the only intense enough blast that could have been carried out was the simulated 4kg blast, that there was no record of the sound of explosions matching this simulation and that the window breakage patterns didn't match those from the simulation and then deduce (correctly, assuming their statements) that there was no demolition-type blast that was intense enough.

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 02:11AM

meglome wrote: »

How many people have heard an actual car crash? I mean more than a small bump. Not too many. But how many people have heard the many fake hollywood explosion sounds? Most people would be my guess.

Yup, car crashes are rarely, if ever, depicted in movies.

meglome wrote: »

Nobody is claiming people didn't hear things that sounded 'like an explosion'. I have never once suggested that people didn't say that they heard something 'like an explosion'. In fact I'll go further and say I'm confident that people did hear sounds they thought were 'like an explosion'.

I'd like to introduce to you to the concept of a simile...
SIMILE: A simile is a figure of speech that directly compares two different things, usually by employing the words "like", "as", or "than". Even though both similes and metaphors are forms of comparison, similes indirectly compare the two ideas and allow them to remain distinct in spite of their similarities, whereas metaphors compare two things directly. For instance, a simile that compares a person with a bullet would go as follows: "Chris was a record-setting runner as fast as a speeding bullet." A metaphor might read something like, "When Chris ran, he was a speeding bullet racing along the track."

You do realize that the use of the phrase "like an explosion" is NOT a simile?

meglome wrote: »

NIST and the sceptics are saying very clearly that no one heard any explosives (or explosions from explosives). Explosives are very loud, standing nearby would be enough to render you permanently deaf. Even one 4kg bomb (for one column) would be clear as day over a kilometre away and would blow out all the windows in the area. You seem happy to accept the NIST report when they say that the failure of one column precipitated the collapse (after all the fires of course). But want to ignore the elephant in the room that the sounds of even a small explosive device would be heard a long way off and most importantly would have been recorded by numerous devices.

Well, actually since my main point this entire time has been about testing for explosives, the whole NIST conclusion is irrelevant. As I already explained.

meglome wrote: »

Well no they couldn't, as the numerous video recording would have picked them up.

meglome wrote: »

Lot's of things, perhaps hundreds of things, could have exploded when burned or crashed to the ground, etc etc and not one of them need be caused by explosives.

So why didn't you say, not one of them was and be assertive in your post?

meglome wrote: »

Indeed, as they wanted to ensure they understood the collapse. Understanding the collapse doesn't mean they can't rule out explosives pretty quickly.

This is a valid point. But I'd have to ask then how did they rule it so quickly?

meglome wrote: »

Do you want to explain how the percussive sound of even a small amount of explosives wouldn't be recorded on every single piece of video footage?

Not really, since I wasn't arguing this anyway. But it seems from other posts here that this claim of yours may not be true anyway ... so no need to explain it.

meglome wrote: »

You know it's funny you say it's "quite easy to plant/controlled such devices, you know, with technologies like mobile phones, radio transmitters" but you don't have one shred of evidence for that. (Not that it explains away the lack of the sounds anyway). You can't even show another building in history that this happened to. You are critical and suspicious of the NIST report but your own theories are far fetched (perhaps impossible) and without foundation. So yes it would have been nice if NIST tested for explosives residue, but that isn't evidence of anything nor is it even suspicious given there were no other signs of explosives whatsoever. Your theories are even more far fetched once we include WTC1 & 2, or did the planes and fires bring them down and it was only explosives that were placed in WTC7?

You're getting very upset about those ideas I suggested. I never said they were fact or even presented them as part of some theory. I merely asked (you should've noticed I posed them as questions) if they could have been possible. But never mind, you're not here to discuss anyway.

And I never said not testing was evidence of anything.

Finally, how can you claim my theories are even more far fetched once we include WTC1 & 2 and THEN ask me how my theory relates to them?

That's the problem with trying to discuss with NCT'ists. They always assume you have some theory and can't see past disproving it.

meglome · 21-09-2011 03:17AM

Ramocc wrote: »

Yup, car crashes are rarely, if ever, depicted in movies.

Not the way they really sound in my experience. The point is all movie sounds are fake to varying degrees but people will use what they have heard to make comparison. So a loud bang or crash can and will be described as like an explosion.

Ramocc wrote: »

You do realize that the use of the phrase "like an explosion" is NOT a simile?

They are all talking about specific sounds they heard so 'the sound I heard was like an explosion'. So we can argue that it's a metaphor and not a smile. Boo hoo I'm tired. The point I was making remains the same, they were not saying they heard explosives.

Ramocc wrote: »

Well, actually since my main point this entire time has been about testing for explosives, the whole NIST conclusion is irrelevant. As I already explained.

So they didn't find any evidence for explosives and didn't test for explosives residue, so what? Does that prove something important or relevant?

Ramocc wrote: »

So why didn't you say, not one of them was and be assertive in your post?

You quote my post yourself, I said "not one of them need be caused by explosives", was that not clear? One thing we can be pretty sure of is a fridge exploding from the fire might be heard in the next room but the explosives would have been heard half way across the city.

Ramocc wrote: »

This is a valid point. But I'd have to ask then how did they rule it so quickly?.

I don't know, the same way you don't know. So any conclusion either of us came to would be speculation and not based in any evidence. I draw no conclusions other than I know they investigated the site and were happy that explosives weren't the cause. The models also agree that explosives were not the cause.

Ramocc wrote: »

Not really, since I wasn't arguing this anyway. But it seems from other posts here that this claim of yours may not be true anyway ... so no need to explain it.

There are no recording of explosions... none. How do you explain that? The two videos I've seen with the sounds of explosions have been clearly faked and provably so. Literally ten minutes of looking and I could prove they were faked. Though if you like you can take the WTC7 footage in this thread and get all the other footage from that same side and show me I'm incorrect.

Ramocc wrote: »

You're getting very upset about those ideas I suggested. I never said they were fact or even presented them as part of some theory. I merely asked (you should've noticed I posed them as questions) if they could have been possible. But never mind, you're not here to discuss anyway.

Not in the slightest bit upset about the ideas you posted. It good to look at all the possibilities, it's good to speculate. As long as it's clear that's what we're doing. If you want to talk facts and evidence then you have none. If we want to talk about what really happened then your speculation is irrelevant as there's not one thing to back it up. Remember you seem to think we shouldn't bring up space lasers and nukes but they equally have no evidence for them. So why it your theory any better?

Ramocc wrote: »

And I never said not testing was evidence of anything.

Excellent. So if it's not evidence of anything why should we consider it any more important than space laser or nukes?

Ramocc wrote: »

Finally, how can you claim my theories are even more far fetched once we include WTC1 & 2 and THEN ask me how my theory relates to them?

That's the problem with trying to discuss with NCT'ists. They always assume you have some theory and can't see past disproving it.

Okay to be fair... what are your theories exactly? And do those theories apply to just WTC7 of all of the WTC complex? What evidence of any kind do you have for those theories?

I believe the official reports, though I don't rule out that the US had some idea and let it play out or they had some idea but didn't put the pieces together through some incompetence.

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 09:44AM

meglome wrote: »

Not the way they really sound in my experience. The point is all movie sounds are fake to varying degrees but people will use what they have heard to make comparison. So a loud bang or crash can and will be described as like an explosion.

And an explosion can and will be described as like an explosion.

meglome wrote: »

They are all talking about specific sounds they heard so 'the sound I heard was like an explosion'. So we can argue that it's a metaphor and not a smile. Boo hoo I'm tired. The point I was making remains the same, they were not saying they heard explosives.

Nope, it's not even a metaphor. It's a description, plain and simple.

Let me introduce you to the correct use of these terms:

Simile: The boomerang dived to the ground like a rocket out of fuel.
Metaphor: That boomerang is a rocket when thrown.
Description: The boomerang looks like a rocket.

Now, I'm perfectly capable of understanding "they were not saying they heard explosives", and it's a good point. Instead you wasted my time by "introducing" me to an irrelevant concept.

meglome wrote: »

So they didn't find any evidence for explosives and didn't test for explosives residue, so what? Does that prove something important or relevant?

This is a pointless question. We've been discussing whether they should have tested for explosives residue. Because if they should have tested for explosives residue, and deliberately did not, then that can be used by people to strengthen/weaken their beliefs.

meglome wrote: »

You quote my post yourself, I said "not one of them need be caused by explosives", was that not clear? One thing we can be pretty sure of is a fridge exploding from the fire might be heard in the next room but the explosives would have been heard half way across the city.

In one post you make the statement "not one of them need be caused by explosives". Then in the next you effectively make the stronger statement "not one of them was caused by explosives. Is that clear?

And to the second point, no. There was a lot of background noise, people shouting/screaming, buildings in the way, etc. Like when you're in a noisy pub and you can't hear what someone is saying.

Even the NIST report makes an assumption here:

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.

meglome wrote: »

I don't know, the same way you don't know. So any conclusion either of us came to would be speculation and not based in any evidence. I draw no conclusions other than I know they investigated the site and were happy that explosives weren't the cause. The models also agree that explosives were not the cause.

But isn't that what we were discussing? Some people gave reasons for dismissing explosives immediately (like certain people who are thanking your reply without replying to me themselves.) With arguments that I have countered.

Like I said, I have my issues with the investigation, but at least we're getting somewhere. Although the models were simulated years later, so I still don't think they can be used as a reason.

Let me ask you this. If the NIST simulations (or any other peer reviewed simulation) had shown that there were possible explosive scenarios consistent with the sound and window breakage patterns, but obviously still suffered from the lack of evidence problem, how would you feel the lack of testing of explosive residue in the initial investigation?

meglome wrote: »

There are no recording of explosions... none. How do you explain that? The two videos I've seen with the sounds of explosions have been clearly faked and provably so. Literally ten minutes of looking and I could prove they were faked. Though if you like you can take the WTC7 footage in this thread and get all the other footage from that same side and show me I'm incorrect.

It should be easier show a video is fake, so I would really appreciate it if you shared this proof with us all. Links will do, I'm not too lazy to read.

meglome wrote: »

Not in the slightest bit upset about the ideas you posted. It good to look at all the possibilities, it's good to speculate. As long as it's clear that's what we're doing. If you want to talk facts and evidence then you have none. If we want to talk about what really happened then your speculation is irrelevant as there's not one thing to back it up. Remember you seem to think we shouldn't bring up space lasers and nukes but they equally have no evidence for them. So why it your theory any better?

And we're back to here again. I've given reasons why space lasers and nukes were physically impossible. I was hoping you'd give me some physical reasons why these ideas were invalid. Instead of going back to the evidence argument that I never used against space lasers or nukes.

meglome wrote: »

Excellent. So if it's not evidence of anything why should we consider it any more important than space laser or nukes?

I have no idea what you're asking here. What do you mean by more important in this context?

meglome wrote: »

Okay to be fair... what are your theories exactly? And do those theories apply to just WTC7 of all of the WTC complex? What evidence of any kind do you have for those theories?

Now you're being fair? But at least you're finally asking me what my theories are. I've stated before that I don't have a specific theory. I don't need to have one. I've stated before (in my accurate summary post to FrostyJack that some people aren't happy with but can't explain why) that I don't 100% believe an explosives theory, but I do not 100% the offical Osama theory either. But I'd like to know if certain theories/ideas are possible or not. There are a lot of coincidences surrounding 9/11 that lead credence to various conspiracy theories, and as Arthur Conan Doyle said:

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

meglome wrote: »

I believe the official reports, though I don't rule out that the US had some idea and let it play out or they had some idea but didn't put the pieces together through some incompetence.

Fair enough.

davoxx · 21-09-2011 10:08AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

He wouldnt know how.

yet another meaningful post.

Divorce Referendum, you come to a thread where you had zero input, just to take a swipe at me stating that in the NIST report, 4kg of explosives could bring down the WTC7.

that's all you've done, after everyone has left ... in you come.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I just did dum dum. Putting you on ignore for persistent trolling.

am i on ignore or what dum dum wink wink?

davoxx · 21-09-2011 10:24AM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

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.

okay .. you are just trolling .. even you admit that the 4kg would cut it.

then you change tact and start arguing that the report does not have the sentence "4kg of explosives would cut column 79 which would cause the collapse of WTC7".

so what are you arguing? that the report does not have the line above stated as above so that you can understand it?

if you are looking for that line as is, it's not in the report, i used the search function,

.

meglome · 21-09-2011 01:16PM

Ramocc wrote: »

And an explosion can and will be described as like an explosion.

Nope, it's not even a metaphor. It's a description, plain and simple.

So one thing being said to be like another isn't a simile or metaphor now, I'll have to throw out my dictionary.

You know we can go around and around but I've never seen anyone explain quiet explosives. It's normally where they bring in thermite (or the super duper doesn't exist nano kind). But there are plenty of reasonable explanations as to why people would describe something being like an explosion.

Ramocc wrote: »

Now, I'm perfectly capable of understanding "they were not saying they heard explosives", and it's a good point. Instead you wasted my time by "introducing" me to an irrelevant concept.

Irrelevant... I see. Why don't you explain how explosives can be made quiet enough to not be recorded on a single recording device? But at the same time supposedly be loud enough to be heard by the human ear.

Ramocc wrote: »

This is a pointless question. We've been discussing whether they should have tested for explosives residue. Because if they should have tested for explosives residue, and deliberately did not, then that can be used by people to strengthen/weaken their beliefs..

Well to be honest unless you have some evidence that NIST don't have then the whole reason they didn't test for explosives remains the same. No leftover evidence, no sounds, no glass breaking = no explosives. You can say till the cows come home that NIST should have tested for explosives, and perhaps they should have. Of course it won't change there is no evidence for explosives. And as I keep saying I really would eat my own arse if the CT's didn't just claim the test was faked (everyone is in on it after all - except when NIST produced their reports seemingly).

Ramocc wrote: »

In one post you make the statement "not one of them need be caused by explosives". Then in the next you effectively make the stronger statement "not one of them was caused by explosives. Is that clear?

Fridges can explode, photocopiers can explode, transformers can explode. water heaters can explode, the cleaning cupboard can explode... I could go on. All it would take is a big fire or something... oh wait...

Ramocc wrote: »

But isn't that what we were discussing? Some people gave reasons for dismissing explosives immediately (like certain people who are thanking your reply without replying to me themselves.) With arguments that I have countered.

Well you speculated quite a bit, with not a jot of evidence and got hi-fived by some other people who don't have any evidence for what they claim either.

Ramocc wrote: »

Like I said, I have my issues with the investigation, but at least we're getting somewhere. Although the models were simulated years later, so I still don't think they can be used as a reason.

Let me ask you this. If the NIST simulations (or any other peer reviewed simulation) had shown that there were possible explosive scenarios consistent with the sound and window breakage patterns, but obviously still suffered from the lack of evidence problem, how would you feel the lack of testing of explosive residue in the initial investigation?.

I think if some leftovers from explosives where found, if any sounds were recorded, if several windows blew out, if the simulations showed it then yes explosives should be tested for. Even if one of those things were true then absolutely test for explosives. But as you well know none of those things are so. Basically I believe you're asking if the situation was completely different would it be different, em yes it would.

Ramocc wrote: »

It should be easier show a video is fake, so I would really appreciate it if you shared this proof with us all. Links will do, I'm not too lazy to read.

You know if the video wasn't such a blatant obvious fake I'd be bothered. Most of the footage of WTC7 is from the same side, and none of them have any flashes or explosives. Not that the fakery is even like an actual controlled demolition.

Ramocc wrote: »

And we're back to here again. I've given reasons why space lasers and nukes were physically impossible. I was hoping you'd give me some physical reasons why these ideas were invalid. Instead of going back to the evidence argument that I never used against space lasers or nukes.

But are they physically impossible? or just very unlikely? Like having silent explosives, that don't break windows, or leave any evidence... that kind of very unlikely?

Ramocc wrote: »

I have no idea what you're asking here. What do you mean by more important in this context?

I mean you have speculated on different things and provided no evidence for any of it. So why is your speculation more important or more relevant than any theory which equally has no evidence? You want us to take your speculation seriously (it seems) but have nothing to back any of it up.

Ramocc wrote: »

Now you're being fair? But at least you're finally asking me what my theories are. I've stated before that I don't have a specific theory. I don't need to have one.

My my a CT supporter with no real theory but lots of innuendo and speculation... I'm shocked. You are actively saying NIST didn't do their jobs, yet you have nothing to back that up with. I'm sure your unverified opinion is great but you'll forgive me for not believing you since you don't have even basic evidence.

Ramocc wrote: »

I've stated before (in my accurate summary post to FrostyJack that some people aren't happy with but can't explain why) that I don't 100% believe an explosives theory, but I do not 100% the offical Osama theory either.

So what experience did you compare the 911 attacks to so you could judge? Would you care to explain how the explosives theory works for WTC1 & 2? or as I asked is it just WTC7 they blew up?

Ramocc wrote: »

But I'd like to know if certain theories/ideas are possible or not. There are a lot of coincidences surrounding 9/11 that lead credence to various conspiracy theories...

I think a lot of us would which is why were are here. You see with 911 from reading the CT sites I'm expected to think that coincidences are suspicious, but coincidences happen all the time. It's the bigger picture they keep bringing up as the fine details don't match the CT.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

You know I love that quote, big fan of Conan Doyle. The problem with the way your using it is you haven't eliminated anything. You've speculated on things that that cannot be shown to have any basis in fact. Worse they can't even be shown to have ever happened before in history. For someone with no theory and no evidence and no reference points you're very sure of the NIST reports being wrong and your opinion being righteous.

davoxx · 21-09-2011 01:31PM

meglome wrote: »

So one thing being said to be like another isn't a simile or metaphor now, I'll have to throw out my dictionary.

i was going to try to explain it .. but Ramocc examples are too basic.

Divorce Referendum · 21-09-2011 02:00PM

Ramocc wrote: »

Do you mean, "How do you deduce the ..." or are you still being smart.

They are referring to their statements (not being disputed here) that the only intense enough blast that could have been carried out was the simulated 4kg blast, that there was no record of the sound of explosions matching this simulation and that the window breakage patterns didn't match those from the simulation and then deduce (correctly, assuming their statements) that there was no demolition-type blast that was intense enough.

Is that not contradictory?

davoxx · 21-09-2011 02:03PM

meglome wrote: »

So one thing being said to be like another isn't a simile or metaphor now, I'll have to throw out my dictionary.

or you could actually read it .. just saying

meglome wrote: »

You know we can go around and around but I've never seen anyone explain quiet explosives. It's normally where they bring in thermite (or the super duper doesn't exist nano kind). But there are plenty of reasonable explanations as to why people would describe something being like an explosion.

like an explosion, which might sound like an explosion?
so they heard noises that sounded like an explosion, while not being an explosion, then there exists quiet explosions?
what are quiet explosives, they are too small to create a shock-wave and rely on heat being generated at a slower rate?

meglome wrote: »

Irrelevant... I see. Why don't you explain how explosives can be made quiet enough to not be recorded on a single recording device? But at the same time supposedly be loud enough to be heard by the human ear.

frequency range? noise level cancellation technology? or maybe that we don't have all the footage? or that some footage have explosion like noises that are not made from noiseless explosions ....

time out .. what are you asking? that the videos that have explosion sounds are made from explosions? or arguing that they don't sound like explosions?

meglome wrote: »

Well to be honest unless you have some evidence that NIST don't have then the whole reason they didn't test for explosives remains the same. No leftover evidence, no sounds, no glass breaking = no explosives. You can say till the cows come home that NIST should have tested for explosives, and perhaps they should have. Of course it won't change there is no evidence for explosives. And as I keep saying I really would eat my own arse if the CT's didn't just claim the test was faked (everyone is in on it after all - except when NIST produced their reports seemingly).

even you say perhaps they should have.

yes or no, should they have tested, your stance changes by the hour.

meglome wrote: »

Fridges can explode, photocopiers can explode, transformers can explode. water heaters can explode, the cleaning cupboard can explode... I could go on. All it would take is a big fire or something... oh wait...

or a plane, oh wait ...

meglome wrote: »

Well you speculated quite a bit, with not a jot of evidence and got hi-fived by some other people who don't have any evidence for what they claim either.

you have evidence for what you claim, present it first, thanks ....

meglome wrote: »

I think if some leftovers from explosives where found, if any sounds were recorded, if several windows blew out, if the simulations showed it then yes explosives should be tested for. Even if one of those things were true then absolutely test for explosives. But as you well know none of those things are so. Basically I believe you're asking if the situation was completely different would it be different, em yes it would.

if left overs were found, then the explosives did not explode, so there would be no reason to test for explosvies, right?

meglome wrote: »

You know if the video wasn't such a blatant obvious fake I'd be bothered. Most of the footage of WTC7 is from the same side, and none of them have any flashes or explosives. Not that the fakery is even like an actual controlled demolition.

PROOF PLEASE??? OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM....

meglome wrote: »

But are they physically impossible? or just very unlikely? Like having silent explosives, that don't break windows, or leave any evidence... that kind of very unlikely?

like tons of explosives required to take down wtc7 while not damaging other buildings?

meglome wrote: »

I mean you have speculated on different things and provided no evidence for any of it. So why is your speculation more important or more relevant than any theory which equally has no evidence? You want us to take your speculation seriously (it seems) but have nothing to back any of it up.

because it makes sense.
seriously think about it.
like space lasers vs unicorns vs explosives vs no plane flying into it.
which makes the most sense in taking a building down on 911??

meglome wrote: »

My my a CT supporter with no real theory but lots of innuendo and speculation... I'm shocked. You are actively saying NIST didn't do their jobs, yet you have nothing to back that up with. I'm sure your unverified opinion is great but you'll forgive me for not believing you since you don't have even basic evidence.

says the NCT with now theory, evidence, proof, logic ... i'm not shocked .. saw this one ages ago.
i forgive you for not understanding it even.

meglome wrote: »

So what experience did you compare the 911 attacks to so you could judge? Would you care to explain how the explosives theory works for WTC1 & 2? or as I asked is it just WTC7 they blew up?

the same that you did to determine that it was planes hitting WTC 1&2 that brought down a single building, without debris from 1&2 hitting it.
don't change the subject now that you're getting trapped, this is about WTC7
unicorns did the other two

meglome wrote: »

I think a lot of us would which is why were are here. You see with 911 from reading the CT sites I'm expected to think that coincidences are suspicious, but coincidences happen all the time. It's the bigger picture they keep bringing up as the fine details don't match the CT.

coincidences are happening right now, one ct gets debunked, then another one happens to wander in on the thread ...

meglome wrote: »

Worse they can't even be shown to have ever happened before in history.

like terrorists flying planes into buildings? or bush administration lying?

i suppose you've never made a sane point, ergo you never will?

meglome wrote: »

For someone with no theory and no evidence and no reference points you're very sure of the NIST reports being wrong and your opinion being righteous.

i need a theory and evidence and reference points?
wow
where is your theory and evidence and reference points?
yup.

meglome wrote: »

Worse they can't even be shown to have ever happened before in history.

i remember the moon landing, the first time man set foot on the moon, wait .. the first time you said? it never happened before in history you confirm? mmmm so you are now saying they never landed on the moon??#
what about flying? they first time man flew?? never happened before eh?? i'll tell the pilots this so ..

davoxx · 21-09-2011 02:08PM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Is that not contradictory?

nope but this is not:

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

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.

;)

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 02:09PM

meglome wrote: »

So one thing being said to be like another isn't a simile or metaphor now, I'll have to throw out my dictionary.

meglome wrote: »

I'd like to introduce to you to the concept of a simile...
SIMILE: A simile is a figure of speech that directly compares two different things ...

No, instead you should use it to look up the words you don't understand. If you read the entire wikipedia page that you quoted, you'll see at the bottom a link to the topic called "Description".

meglome wrote: »

You know we can go around and around but I've never seen anyone explain quiet explosives. It's normally where they bring in thermite (or the super duper doesn't exist nano kind). But there are plenty of reasonable explanations as to why people would describe something being like an explosion.

You're right, you certainly can go around and around.

meglome wrote: »

Irrelevant... I see. Why don't you explain how explosives can be made quiet enough to not be recorded on a single recording device? But at the same time supposedly be loud enough to be heard by the human ear.

Wow, your failure to understand English should astound me. But I kinda expected it after your whole simile farce. I said that mentioning similes, especially when you don't understand what they are was irrelevant.

meglome wrote: »

Well to be honest unless you have some evidence that NIST don't have then the whole reason they didn't test for explosives remains the same. No leftover evidence, no sounds, no glass breaking = no explosives. You can say till the cows come home that NIST should have tested for explosives, and perhaps they should have. Of course it won't change there is no evidence for explosives. And as I keep saying I really would eat my own arse if the CT's didn't just claim the test was faked (everyone is in on it after all - except when NIST produced their reports seemingly).

Wow, we're talking about the initial investigation team testing for explosives. Not the NIST who DIDN'T DO AN ONSITE INVESTIGATION. Especially since the NIST investigation was SEVERAL YEARS later.

meglome wrote: »

Fridges can explode, photocopiers can explode, transformers can explode. water heaters can explode, the cleaning cupboard can explode... I could go on. All it would take is a big fire or something... oh wait...

You just don't get it... You claim one thing, then another and then talk about the aspects of the claim without clarifying your claim itself.

meglome wrote: »

Well you speculated quite a bit, with not a jot of evidence and got hi-fived by some other people who don't have any evidence for what they claim either.

Again, physical facts about space lasers and nuclear bombs is not speculation. Refer to your dictionary. Or you can, for once, counter the arguments based on physical fact. Again you're confused between

Claiming that the nuclear bombs and space lasers theories are impossible

and

Claiming that the explosives theory was possible

Take you that dictionary, look up the big words and then you'll see that arguing one does not imply the other.

meglome wrote: »

I think if some leftovers from explosives where found, if any sounds were recorded, if several windows blew out, if the simulations showed it then yes explosives should be tested for. Even if one of those things were true then absolutely test for explosives. But as you well know none of those things are so. Basically I believe you're asking if the situation was completely different would it be different, em yes it would.

So one thing being different is the same thing as the situation being completely different? Well done contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. I think you understood my point, it's hard to tell when you can't answer a simple question in a straightforward manner.

meglome wrote: »

You know if the video wasn't such a blatant obvious fake I'd be bothered. Most of the footage of WTC7 is from the same side, and none of them have any flashes or explosives. Not that the fakery is even like an actual controlled demolition.

If you're not bothered to show it, then I'm not bothered to care.

meglome wrote: »

But are they physically impossible? or just very unlikely? Like having silent explosives, that don't break windows, or leave any evidence... that kind of very unlikely?

No, and this is very very clear. They're impossible. For the reasons given. Get it now?

meglome wrote: »

I mean you have speculated on different things and provided no evidence for any of it. So why is your speculation more important or more relevant than any theory which equally has no evidence? You want us to take your speculation seriously (it seems) but have nothing to back any of it up.

Huh? So you're only answer to EVERYTHING is that there is no evidence. It doesn't matter what I suggest since you'll just say, "there's no evidence". You haven't given a single other reason. Do you even understand the difference between discussing what could have happened and what actually happened?

For any event, exactly one thing actually did happen. That's a fact (whether or not we know what it was that happened). However any number of things could have happened. Similarly, there are things that could not have happened. Not just because of evidence, but because of other scientific facts.

meglome wrote: »

My my a CT supporter with no real theory but lots of innuendo and speculation... I'm shocked. You are actively saying NIST didn't do their jobs, yet you have nothing to back that up with. I'm sure your unverified opinion is great but you'll forgive me for not believing you since you don't have even basic evidence.

Actually, I never said the NIST didn't do their jobs. I said that the initial inspection team didn't do their jobs. But then again, it's not like you've properly read anything I've written.

meglome wrote: »

So what experience did you compare the 911 attacks to so you could judge? Would you care to explain how the explosives theory works for WTC1 & 2? or as I asked is it just WTC7 they blew up?

Which explosive theory is that?
And no, I don't care to explain anything to you.

meglome wrote: »

I think a lot of us would which is why were are here. You see with 911 from reading the CT sites I'm expected to think that coincidences are suspicious, but coincidences happen all the time. It's the bigger picture they keep bringing up as the fine details don't match the CT.

Fine details as in evidence? It seems the only fine detail you keep harping on about is evidence. Then just say "as the EVIDENCE don't match the CT". At least we'll know you're a one trick pony.

Here are some points made earlier showing that evidence/lack of evidence is not infallible. Hence I'd like some scientific proof, where possible of course.

(1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(2) The collection of evidence can be steered heavily by the nature of an investigation.
(3) The interpretion of evidence can be influenced by preconceptions.
(4) Evidence can be fabricated, modified or withheld.

meglome wrote: »

You know I love that quote, big fan of Conan Doyle. The problem with the way your using it is you haven't eliminated anything. You've speculated on things that that cannot be shown to have any basis in fact. Worse they can't even be shown to have ever happened before in history. For someone with no theory and no evidence and no reference points you're very sure of the NIST reports being wrong and your opinion being righteous.

We've eliminated space lasers and nuclear bombs. Using hard scientific facts.

And again, "cannot be shown to have any basis" is not the same as "can be shown to not have any basis". So it's true that I speculated, I stated that quite clearly.
What has history got to do with it? And are you claiming that no one has ever used a mobile phone to set off an explosive?

Do you have any EVIDENCE that I'm very sure of the NIST reports being wrong?

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 02:26PM

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Is that not contradictory?

I really have to break things down for you.

Here are some statements.

S1: An explosive was involved in the collapse of the building.
S1a: A explosive of at least 4kg was set and exploded.
S2: The windows blew out in a particular pattern.
S3: A loud sound of 140dB was created.

The NIST claim:

S1 => S1a (no proof given)
S1a => S2 (using simulations)
S1a => S3 (using simulations)
not S2 (based on evidence)
not S3 (based on evidence)

Now, as anybody with an elementary understanding of logic would know:

(A =>

=> (not B => not A)

i.e.

not S2 => not S1a
not S3 => not S1a

and

not S1a => not S1

i.e.
Assuming that the windows did not blow out in a particular patternor that no sound of 140dB was heard, then no explosive was involved in the collapse of the building.

That is ALL that it says.

P.S. The use of "or" in the above statement is because logically either of "not S2" or "not S3" would have been sufficient to show "not S1a".

meglome · 21-09-2011 02:39PM

You know there is so much nonsense in your post I wasn't going to bother replying.

davoxx wrote: »

like an explosion, which might sound like an explosion?
so they heard noises that sounded like an explosion, while not being an explosion, then there exists quiet explosions?
what are quiet explosives, they are too small to create a shock-wave and rely on heat being generated at a slower rate?

I have no idea what this means. I can repeat that as explosives are massively concussive they can't be quiet, they are very very loud - laws of physics etc. If you know of a quiet explosive then post up the details?

davoxx wrote: »

frequency range? noise level cancellation technology? or maybe that we don't have all the footage? or that some footage have explosion like noises that are not made from noiseless explosions ....

Or maybe it was a nuke or space lasers. See you're inventing technology that cannot do what you think. And maybe the man in the moon did it or maybe it was superman or maybe maybe maybe. And still not one smidgen of evidence.

davoxx wrote: »

time out .. what are you asking? that the videos that have explosion sounds are made from explosions? or arguing that they don't sound like explosions?

There are no videos with explosives sounds other than the faked ones. The obviously and clearly faked ones.

davoxx wrote: »

even you say perhaps they should have.

yes or no, should they have tested, your stance changes by the hour.

In your opinion they should have tested. I'd be very happy if they did too. But as I keep repeating there is still no evidence for explosives - no sounds - no flashes - no windows blown out - no leftover evidence... nothing.

davoxx wrote: »

or a plane, oh wait ...

Yes that's what started all the fires. and made many of those sounds that sounded like explosions.

davoxx wrote: »

you have evidence for what you claim, present it first, thanks ....

PROOF PLEASE??? OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM....

Em the NIST reports, you know the ones that took years to put together.

davoxx wrote: »

if left overs were found, then the explosives did not explode, so there would be no reason to test for explosvies, right?

You realise that explosives have to be connected to something to go off right? You realise they will do noticeable damage right?

davoxx wrote: »

like tons of explosives required to take down wtc7 while not damaging other buildings?.

No idea what you're on about. Even a tiny amount of explosives would be clear as day to hear and would blow out all the windows in the area.

davoxx wrote: »

because it makes sense.
seriously think about it.
like space lasers vs unicorns vs explosives vs no plane flying into it.
which makes the most sense in taking a building down on 911??

Well that two planes crashed into two buildings and the there was two big fires which then caused a big fire in an adjoining building. Have you got evidence of something else?

davoxx wrote: »

says the NCT with now theory, evidence, proof, logic ... i'm not shocked .. saw this one ages ago.
i forgive you for not understanding it even.

Huh? NIST reports remember?

davoxx wrote: »

the same that you did to determine that it was planes hitting WTC 1&2 that brought down a single building, without debris from 1&2 hitting it.
don't change the subject now that you're getting trapped, this is about WTC7
unicorns did the other two .

Huh? I'm asking about WTC1 & 2 to see how that fits into the rest of the his theory. Turns out he has no theory... just he's suspicious.

davoxx wrote: »

coincidences are happening right now, one ct gets debunked, then another one happens to wander in on the thread ...

Huh? CT's are consistently debunked but the true believers don't want to hear it.

davoxx wrote: »

like terrorists flying planes into buildings? or bush administration lying?

i suppose you've never made a sane point, ergo you never will?

i need a theory and evidence and reference points?
wow
where is your theory and evidence and reference points?
yup.

Em yes I'll have two with some soup. Are you taking drugs of any kind?

davoxx wrote: »

i remember the moon landing, the first time man set foot on the moon, wait .. the first time you said? it never happened before in history you confirm? mmmm so you are now saying they never landed on the moon??#
what about flying? they first time man flew?? never happened before eh?? i'll tell the pilots this so ..

Nope that's not what I actually said. I said that he was making claims he could not prove whatsoever. And worse they have never been shown to have happened in history. It's the combination of the two that makes the point.

meglome · 21-09-2011 02:51PM

Ramocc wrote: »

Do you have any EVIDENCE that I'm very sure of the NIST reports being wrong?

You know this is a completely pointless exercise. By your own admission you have no theory. How can we discuss anything with you when you won't be pinned down on any point. You just keep dodging around. You are the stereotypical conspiracy theorist... who feels something is wrong but can't actually show what that is.

Please list off all your evidence for anything you do believe (whatever that is)? All I've seen from you is speculation and innuendo, does that work for evidence where you come from?

As you know I accept the NIST reports in as far as I can check them myself.

Oh and believe me if you do actually have any proof I'd be delighted to see it and will approach it with an open mind.

Ramocc · 21-09-2011 03:47PM

meglome wrote: »

You know this is a completely pointless exercise. By your own admission you have no theory. How can we discuss anything with you when you won't be pinned down on any point. You just keep dodging around. You are the stereotypical conspiracy theorist... who feels something is wrong but can't actually show what that is.

I have plenty of points I'm sticking to, just no single theory. Like I said, I don't need a theory. What do I keep dodging around? You are the stereotypical "non-conspiracy" theorist... who knows everything is right.

meglome wrote: »

Please list off all your evidence for anything you do believe (whatever that is)? All I've seen from you is speculation and innuendo, does that work for evidence where you come from?

If you think evidence is so important ...

... why didn't you give me any for a claim you made about me?

meglome wrote: »

As you know I accept the NIST reports in as far as I can check them myself.

Okie dokie then. Doesn't say anything about the initial investigation, but okie dokie then anyway.

meglome wrote: »

Oh and believe me if you do actually have any proof I'd be delighted to see it and will approach it with an open mind.

Can you prove this?

davoxx · 21-09-2011 04:04PM

meglome wrote: »

Nope that's not what I actually said. I said that he was making claims he could not prove whatsoever. And worse they have never been shown to have happened in history. It's the combination of the two that makes the point.

how can anyone prove what has never been shown to have happened in history without actually doing it?

so the only way to prove it is to do it?

are you losing the plot in your "deny all , it is a coincidence" thought process?

davoxx · 21-09-2011 04:32PM

meglome wrote: »

You know there is so much nonsense in your post I wasn't going to bother replying.

you probably should not have, then i would not have to go through more of your nonsense, but you did, so i will have to.

meglome wrote: »

Or maybe it was a nuke or space lasers. See you're inventing technology that cannot do what you think. And maybe the man in the moon did it or maybe it was superman or maybe maybe maybe. And still not one smidgen of evidence.

inventing tech that cannot do what i think they do? ... i'm not sure how that would work out?
but at least you're back to lasers and unicorns again?

meglome wrote: »

There are no videos with explosives sounds other than the faked ones. The obviously and clearly faked ones.

oh they were all faked, why did you NOT JUST SAY SO.
of course you have proof that they were faked? or is it coincidence that you can't?

meglome wrote: »

In your opinion they should have tested. I'd be very happy if they did too. But as I keep repeating there is still no evidence for explosives - no sounds - no flashes - no windows blown out - no leftover evidence... nothing.

why would you be happy if they did test for explosives when you know that there was no explosives?
you changed your stance from "they should not have tested" to "i'd be happy though the did not need to", surely you'd be unhappy since testing for explosives is EXACTLY the same as testing for unicorns.

meglome wrote: »

Yes that's what started all the fires. and made many of those sounds that sounded like explosions.

on WTC7?

meglome wrote: »

Em the NIST reports, you know the ones that took years to put together.

the same one you did not bother to read?

meglome wrote: »

You realise that explosives have to be connected to something to go off right? You realise they will do noticeable damage right?

like a building collapsing when it was not hit by a plane, and no other buildings around it fell down?

meglome wrote: »

No idea what you're on about. Even a tiny amount of explosives would be clear as day to hear and would blow out all the windows in the area.

proof please, as i'm not sure you know what you mean by tiny.

meglome wrote: »

Well that two planes crashed into two buildings and the there was two big fires which then caused a big fire in an adjoining building. Have you got evidence of something else?

case solved lads .. there was not need for the investigation in the first place, why didn't you say so.
oh wait what about other adjoining buildings?? oh yeah coincidence

meglome wrote: »

Huh? NIST reports remember?

the same one you did not bother to read?

meglome wrote: »

Huh? I'm asking about WTC1 & 2 to see how that fits into the rest of the his theory. Turns out he has no theory... just he's suspicious.

i'm talking about WTC7
nothing wrong with being suspicious ... plenty with being gullible.

meglome wrote: »

Huh? CT's are consistently debunked but the true believers don't want to hear it.

all the time, like right now ... you NCT guys are so easily debunking us true believers (which make you fake believers).
but yet you're changing your story, jumping around, using coincidence like it is fly swatter. i think you don't want to hear it, we more like you can't understand it, so you follow the official report, easier to deny it that way.

meglome wrote: »

Em yes I'll have two with some soup. Are you taking drugs of any kind?

sure once, you pay up front, we can't trust you to actually put anything forward first and stand behind it.
also if you need medication, talk to your physician.

meglome wrote: »

Nope that's not what I actually said. I said that he was making claims he could not prove whatsoever. And worse they have never been shown to have happened in history. It's the combination of the two that makes the point.

tell you what, next post, just say the claim he made that he could not prove.

davoxx · 21-09-2011 04:34PM

King Mob wrote: »

I thought for a second you might be interesting in making a mature point.

My mistake.

davoxx wrote: »

if you apologise for calling me a liar, i will forgive you and we can start again. and if you want, we'll ignore comments and posts prior to now.

no reply yet .. so do i take this as a no? (i'll wait until 22:00)

Cynical Apathy · 21-09-2011 09:10PM

King Mob wrote: »

So how come they get the time of the collapse of building 7 wrong?
How come they don't show the entirety of the collapse?

Honestly IDK, from the very limited knowledge I have on it, I ascertain that a lot (actually an awful lot) of experts in the relevant fields are questioning it. These are credible, educated people who are not trying to sell books or make a living from it. They seem to be patriotic Americans who refuse to ignore the logic they follow in their everyday work lives and follow the status quo that has been fed to them.

I'm far from an expert and know virtually nothing about explosives and the like but I can't logically see how the penthouse could collapse first the way it did on building 7 from the explanation that has been given (What was it? office furniture burning and the tremors from the collapse of the towers?)

21-09-2011 09:53PM

Cynical Apathy wrote: »

Honestly IDK, from the very limited knowledge I have on it, I ascertain that a lot (actually an awful lot) of experts in the relevant fields are questioning it. These are credible, educated people who are not trying to sell books or make a living from it. They seem to be patriotic Americans who refuse to ignore the logic they follow in their everyday work lives and follow the status quo that has been fed to them.

I'm far from an expert and know virtually nothing about explosives and the like but I can't logically see how the penthouse could collapse first the way it did on building 7 from the explanation that has been given (What was it? office furniture burning and the tremors from the collapse of the towers?)

so it doesn't bother you that these Patriotic Americans are making a provably false claim?

How can you logically see anything when these guys aren't even showing you half of the collapse?

New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Comments