Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

24567

Comments

  • #52
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,584 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm not trolling. I'm just answer simple direct questions.
    If you were honest and directly answered them, then we could move on.

    Do you believe that the explosive demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the thermite demolition explanation is possible?
    Do you believe that the space laser demolition explanation is possible?

    Yes or no please.

    your first response to this discussion was this one
    King Mob wrote: »
    What evidence is there of Thermite or Thermate being used?

    Could you point to some examples of these materials ever being used to take down a building?

    Are there any models that show how these could possibly take out a building?

    It is not what I was discussing at all ... the only reference was why NIST ruled it out .. they looked at fires and how the building collapsed.

    This discussion is about the report that investigated wtc7 and came to the conclusion fire couldn't have done that

    If you are Implying I must believe space lasers as well by not answering your OT questions then yes you are trolling or at least incapable of having an adult discussion regarding this
    King Mob wrote: »
    But again, even if your objections to the actual story held and your report was in anyway worth while, then we are still left with the fact that a fire is the only possible explanation.
    Even if the NISTs explanation is totally and utterly wrong, there is no other possible explanation.

    Why ? it has all the markers of controlled demolition ... If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck

    Problem with NIST is the fact they did not properly investigated other possibilities
    King Mob wrote: »
    Thermite and explosives can be ruled out for the exact same reasons as space lasers or magic as explanations.

    No .. the first two cannot be ruled out simply because it was not properly investigated
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you were applying your "skepticism" fairly, then you would be equally declaring these explanations as possible as you claim the fire explanation could be. But you don't because you want to keep those explanations plausible to fit your preferred narrative of a conspiracy.

    So yea, if it's not fire, or explosives or space lasers: what was it?

    Only thing that is thoroughly investigated and ruled out is fire ... If the new reports stands the scrutiny of review
    King Mob wrote: »
    And please stop claiming it's a symmetric collapse. You know it's not.

    It kinda is ... free fall acceleration of the whole outer shell would be impossible if it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.... not me being stubborn but physics disagreeing with you


  • #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    your first response to this discussion was this one

    It is not what I was discussing at all ... the only reference was why NIST ruled it out .. they looked at fires and how the building collapsed.

    This discussion is about the report that investigated wtc7 and came to the conclusion fire couldn't have done that

    If you are Implying I must believe space lasers as well by not answering your OT questions then yes you are trolling or at least incapable of having an adult discussion regarding this
    The point you are missing and avoiding by not answering these questions is that there is no other possible explanations.
    I could have elaborated on this if you had just answered directly.
    weisses wrote: »
    Why ? it has all the markers of controlled demolition ... If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck
    Except the lack of any explosions immediately preceding the collapse.
    And that it would have been done in secret.
    And that it would have been done during intense fires.
    And it only superficially fell like a controlled demolition if you ignore certain aspects.

    There are no markers of in being a controlled demolition.

    Further, this is completely incompatible with the other notion of thermite as you cannot claim that it's exactly like a typical demolition yet it uses material and technique that is never used for demolition.

    So do you rule out thermite as a possibility? You can't entertain both.
    weisses wrote: »
    Problem with NIST is the fact they did not properly investigated other possibilities

    No .. the first two cannot be ruled out simply because it was not properly investigated
    So why can you rule out the space laser explanation?
    Please be specific.
    weisses wrote: »
    Only thing that is thoroughly investigated and ruled out is fire ... If the new reports stands the scrutiny of review
    You've not shown any reason to think that is does, it will or that it would be fairly and rigourously reviewed.
    weisses wrote: »
    It kinda is ... free fall acceleration of the whole outer shell would be impossible if it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.... not me being stubborn but physics disagreeing with you
    Did the building tilt?
    Was there a kink in it as it fell?


  • #54
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Did these thousands of witnesses stated they heard no explosion ?

    I don't know whether this is genuine or an attempt to be obtuse

    Several people (and fire fighters) reported hearing loud bangs and explosions.

    1. Are you suggesting the source of those noises were demolition charges? and what is your rationale behind?

    2. Are you suggesting you believe that WTC 7 could have been blown up by demolition charges?

    3. Do you think the Twin Towers were blown up with demolition charges?


  • #55
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    It kinda is ... free fall acceleration of the whole outer shell would be impossible if it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.... not me being stubborn but physics disagreeing with you

    Lack of understanding of a subject is not a valid argument against it

    Likewise a refusal to accept information. The info is freely available online from multiple credible sources. Questions and explanations can be asked and sought from structural engineering forums, physics forums, etc. There are skeptic resources that go to great lengths and depths to debunk and explain almost every tiny detail of these types of events


  • #56
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Lack of understanding of a subject is not a valid argument against it

    Likewise a refusal to accept information. The info is freely available online from multiple credible sources. Questions and explanations can be asked and sought from structural engineering forums, physics forums, etc. There are skeptic resources that go to great lengths and depths to debunk and explain almost every tiny detail of these types of events
    From that link I found this thread with a great summary of the issues with the study in question:
    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

    And it highlighted this interesting tidbit:
    Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (a group that thinks that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives) approached Dr. Leroy Hulsey (a professor at University of Alaska, Fairbanks) in 2013 to:
    Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction.
    Source: http://archive.is/ZR9S5 and https://web.archive.org/web/20150330080428/www.ae911truth.org/membership-2015
    (Emphasis mine)
    So it seems like they set out to fund a study that had a pre-determined conclusion in mind.
    That kind of undercuts Wiesses' "they're being scientific" canard.


  • #57
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It also lead to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/

    Which in turn lead to this:
    First, many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

    So there you go. The NIST report was peer reviewed.

    I think the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have been telling fibs...


  • #58
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »

    And it highlighted this interesting tidbit:
    (Emphasis mine)
    So it seems like they set out to fund a study that had a pre-determined conclusion in mind.
    That kind of undercuts Wiesses' "they're being scientific" canard.

    Absolutely - and I mentioned that earlier in the thread

    The original
    Conduct sophisticated computer modeling of World Trade Center Building 7 to demonstrate, first, the impossibility of the collapse initiation mechanism put forth by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and, second, that a controlled demolition controlled more readily replicates the observed destruction.

    The new
    WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse.


  • #59
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Another little nugget of fun:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-4#post-204853
    Hulsey no longer talks about having the paper published in a peer reviewed engineering journal; instead, the focus is now on a "peer review panel," which, per the project website, seems likely to be comprised of people who applied to participate in such panel via the website and who were then hand picked by Hulsey.

    That's not peer review by any possible definition.


  • #60
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And as a final little tidbit in case anyone was being impressed by the argument from Authority of them having a real life professor doing this study:

    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-19#post-211332
    So, Dr. Hulsey, a university professor, established the main background facts regarding his study from two anonymous conspiracy theory blogs and, in fact, plagiarized those blogs without attribution. And this is all while he was claiming he was reading as little as possible about the event in order to maintain a neutral, scientific view. Hmmmmmmmm...

    And him not knowing how Kelvin work:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-17#post-211233


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,584 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Another little nugget of fun:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-4#post-204853



    That's not peer review by any possible definition.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And as a final little tidbit in case anyone was being impressed by the argument from Authority of them having a real life professor doing this study:

    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-19#post-211332



    And him not knowing how Kelvin work:
    https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-17#post-211233


    Well done you were able to find a blogger who disagrees and then is being challenged

    And he is then banning people who challenge him ..... :rolleyes::o

    Try again


  • #62
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Well done you were able to find a blogger who disagrees and then is being challenged

    And he is then banning people who challenge him ..... :rolleyes::o

    Try again
    Which parts or points are you objecting to exactly?

    Which parts are not accurate?


  • #63
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which parts or points are you objecting to exactly?

    Which parts are not accurate?

    It came out in court NIST was lying. Aegis insurance vs WTC7. Even though they did not agree with the truther stance about how the collapsed happened. They produced drawings in that court case that showed column 79 and 44 had shear stud connections. NIST removed shear studs to support their case. Skeptics have ignored this finding by claiming NIST probably was looking at different drawings? They just throughout this strawman argument hoping it sticks with no proof whatsoever it happened like this.


  • #64
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Try again

    I genuinely cannot understand your stance here

    1. You are an expert or specialist who believes you have objectively found particular flaws in the NIST investigation report. Not impossible. Considering the overwhelming support this investigation has among experts (architectural, engineering), it does veer towards the unlikely. If so, contact them, give them your findings.

    2. You are a layperson who doesn't understand or can't interpret portions of the NIST report. Fair enough, it's complex stuff. Ask on engineering and related forums.

    3. You are a layperson with a persistent dogmatic view or belief that the report is flawed for nefarious reasons, that the experts and investigators with the evidence and material related to the investigation have missed this or are "in on it", the peer reviewers have missed it (or are "in on it") and any recognised engineering or architectural organisations or bodies have missed it.


  • #65
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I genuinely cannot understand your stance here

    1. You are an expert or specialist who believes you have objectively found particular flaws in the NIST investigation report. Not impossible. Considering the overwhelming support this investigation has among experts (architectural, engineering), it does veer towards the unlikely. If so, contact them, give them your findings.

    2. You are a layperson who doesn't understand or can't interpret portions of the NIST report. Fair enough, it's complex stuff. Ask on engineering and related forums.

    3. You are a layperson with a persistent dogmatic view or belief that the report is flawed for nefarious reasons, that the experts and investigators with the evidence and material related to the investigation have missed this or are "in on it", the peer reviewers have missed it (or are "in on it") and any recognised engineering or architectural organisations or bodies have missed it.

    Architects and Engineers who worked in this profession have disagreed with the NIST report. They have the background and knowledge to dispute NIST findings.

    You prefer to listen to random Skeptics on boards that they know more than the professionals. Most of those people debunking have no expertise to judge.


  • #66
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    weisses wrote: »
    Well done you were able to find a blogger who disagrees and then is being challenged

    And he is then banning people who challenge him ..... :rolleyes::o

    Try again

    benthamitemetric, is a lawyer who posts on Metabunk he has no expertise in engineering and architecture.

    Mike West is a computer programmer again his not an expert.

    When they debate someone who had the background and worked with engineers on his projects, the Skeptics could not debate him properly, and they lost the argument. Skeptic debating among themselves doesn't address anything they are basically agreeing with people with similar positions.

    This thread is very enlighting when Skeptics try to gang up upon someone who knows his stuff and they fall back on same whataboutery and ad hominems when they know they're losing the argument.

    https://www.metabunk.org/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.t2332/


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Architects and Engineers who worked in this profession have disagreed with the NIST report.

    Individuals. And a conspiracy group.

    No recognised group or organisation


  • #68
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    This thread is very enlighting

    Does the guy give a reasonable explanation of what alternatively happened with evidence?

    If not, then he can be ignored

    Why can he be ignored? because if no attempt is made to get to the truth, the facts, the evidence and so on, then it's simply another exercise in tying people up with details and trying to "win" by finding parts they can't explain 1000%. Which is relatively simple.


  • #69
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Individuals. And a conspiracy group.

    No recognised group or organisation

    Conspiracy groups are only people doing the work. Skeptics prefer to sit on forums complaining.

    Every Architect and Engineer signed up AE911Truth has a credible background and education. Nobody on there is a fraud. You need to stop listening to people on Skeptic forums who have no clue what they are talking about.

    It kind of hilarious you disagree with AE911Truth when it was them who forced NIST to change their statement from no free fall to yes there was free fall. Even AE911Truth through investigation found the original drawings for WTC7 and confirmed there were shear stud connections on the concrete floor slabs and girders (column 79 and 44) This was proven in a court case Aegis insurance vs WTC7. Still, to this day NIST has not revisited this mistake.


  • #70
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Conspiracy groups are only people doing the work.

    Conspiracy enthusiasts (in my experience) are people who look for conspiracies

    For example, when a major attack happens, conspiracy enthusiasts go to work on forums trying to discredit events in order to project that the event is a false flag

    Next time a significant attack or shooting happens.. go to conspiracy forums to see this in effect. The faulty techniques are no different than those displayed in threads like these

    It's a backward and frankly dishonest way of thinking


  • #71
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Conspiracy enthusiasts (in my experience) are people who look for conspiracies

    For example, when a major attack happens, conspiracy enthusiasts go to work on forums trying to discredit events in order to project that the event is a false flag

    Next time a significant attack or shooting happens.. go to conspiracy forums to see this in effect. The faulty techniques are no different than those displayed in threads like these

    It's a backward and frankly dishonest way of thinking

    Alex Jones of the world? Even I know Alex is a nutter and every event that happens is a conspiracy. He even said that shooting at the Youtube headquarters was a false flag. I don't like Alex Jones and people like him are only hurting credible investigations.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Alex Jones of the world?

    People who suspect something is a conspiracy from the outset and work backwards from there to discredit the event in order to portray it as a conspiracy

    It's a hobby.


  • #73
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,742 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Alex jones called 9/11 before it happened. He said they would blow WTC and blame it on Bin Laden


  • #74
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    People who suspect something is a conspiracy from the outset and work backwards from there to discredit the event in order to portray it as a conspiracy

    It's a hobby.

    9/11 is full of holes. Even insiders have come forward saying it was a cover-up.


  • #75
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,742 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Was thinking bout the planes and should they hve buried into the buildings like they did. Wings certainly are known to be light enough. The hologram theory is fascinating


  • #76
    Sirius87
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Sirius87


    As well as the World trade towers collapsing upon themselves that day, another 47 story building, known as World Trade Center No. 7, also collapsed upon itself. To watch videos which are readily available on the net of its collapse, to me, it looks very much like a controlled demolition. 'Uncontrolled fires' were to blame for its collapse, making it the first ever steel skyscraper to ever collapse from a fire alone.


  • #77
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    To watch videos which are readily available on the net of its collapse, to me, it looks very much like a controlled demolition.
    In what way does it look like a controlled demolition?
    If it were a controlled demolition, where is the very loud, very noticeable series of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?


  • #78
    Sirius87
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Sirius87


    King Mob wrote: »
    In what way does it look like a controlled demolition?
    If it were a controlled demolition, where is the very loud, very noticeable series of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?

    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.


  • #79
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.

    Here's a building being demo'd - shot from a helicopter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2E_m7l2Rww

    WTC 7 was filmed collapsing from many angles, some relatively close

    Why do none capture controlled demolition explosions?


  • #80
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.
    Yes, I have watched many of the videos, from various angles, including ones with sound. Example here: https://youtu.be/s9B9noU2UC8?t=557
    In addition, there are no reports of any sounds like that from anyone at the site that day. If there were, conspiracy theorists would be holding up those reports all the time.

    There are no such explosions.

    And no, you do not need to be close to the building to hear loud explosions. That's not how sound works.

    So again why do you think that there was no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?


  • #81
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    In what way does it look like a controlled demolition?
    If it were a controlled demolition, where is the very loud, very noticeable series of explosions immediately preceding the collapse?

    There was a loud bang heard on video before the Penthouse collapse. The noise was picked up blocks away so it could be multiple explosions going off at one time but sounded just like one bang far away?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Here's a building being demo'd - shot from a helicopter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2E_m7l2Rww

    WTC 7 was filmed collapsing from many angles, some relatively close

    Why do none capture controlled demolition explosions?

    It looks like a controlled demolition the only way you can tell for sure is hearing the sound. The building came down like most other demolitions you see on a video.

    A loud bang was captured on video before the Pentahouse collapsed its false to say no explosion or bang or sound was heard before the collapse.


  • #83
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Sirius87 wrote: »
    Did you watch the footage? I believe the video was probably taken from a helicopter or a distant building. To hear such explosions, I believe you'd need to be in close vicinity to the building.

    This video is worth studying. 1 minute and 31 seconds you hear that loud boom and sound and 1 to 2 seconds later the Penthouse collapses. Both events are connected. Does not mean this was explosions going off equally it could be a noise caused when the building floors collapsed, but to say no sound was heard before the fall is false.



  • #84
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    There was a loud bang heard on video before the Penthouse collapse.

    There were multiple bangs and noises as the internals collapsed. A collapsing building makes a decent amount of noise.

    There were no explosive demolition bangs which would have been clearly audible from the multiple shots of the building

    Despite the conspiracy communities best efforts to manipulate audio and distort the information they haven't produced anything of substance


  • #85
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There were multiple bangs and noises as the internals collapsed. A collapsing building makes a decent amount of noise.

    There were no explosive demolition bangs which would have been clearly audible from the multiple shots of the building

    Despite the conspiracy communities best efforts to manipulate audio and distort the information they haven't produced anything of substance

    All pictures and videos are of the northside of the building. We have no clue what was happening on the Southside just before the collapse. If we had a video of that side we have a clear picture of what happened.

    The video was not manipulated a clear bang is heard a second or two before the Penthouse caved in. Sorry but for NIST to claim no noise was heard is another lie in their long list of them.


  • #86
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Sorry but for NIST to claim no noise was heard is another lie in their long list of them.

    Incorrect. No demolition charge explosions were heard (they are extremely distinct and can be captured far from source). They are literally clear as day - watch any demolition.

    Truthers and conspiracy theorists have spent years tenuously (and falsely) trying to conflate loud noises from the buildings on fire and in the process of collapsing with explosive demolition charges


  • #87
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Incorrect. No demolition charge explosions were heard (they are extremely distinct and can be captured far from source). They are literally clear as day - watch any demolition.

    Truthers and conspiracy theorists have spent years tenuously (and falsely) trying to conflate loud noises from the buildings on fire and in the process of collapsing with explosive demolition charges

    Demolitions can sound different. Example in the video at 12 minutes 5 seconds only 1 bang is heard and the building collapsed and it's gone. These demolitions are set up anyways beforehand to record the event on 9/11 this wasn't the case.



    A loud noise was heard just a second before the building collapsed. That audio was picked up blocks away so it could be multiple bangs but just sounded like one bang in the distance.


  • #88
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Truthers and conspiracy theorists have spent years tenuously (and falsely) trying to conflate loud noises from the buildings on fire and in the process of collapsing with explosive demolition charges
    Remember also that conspiracy theorists claim that thermite was used, which is not an explosive and does not produce a banging sound.

    On top of this, we have the problem that if they indeed used thermite, then it couldn't possibly look like a typical controlled demolition as no demolition has ever used thermite.

    It's funny how they use completely contradictory claims like this.


  • #89
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Demolitions can sound different.

    There were no explosive demolition sounds recorded when WTC 7 fell

    There is no substantiated evidence that the building was purposefully demolished on that day

    There is no substantiated evidence or consensus of witnesses that claim the building was prepped for demolition (it would have taken weeks if not months to prep a building of that size)

    There is no reasoning provided why they would take the risk of demolishing such a building with explosives

    There are no suspects

    There is no investigation or recognised group of engineers, architects or demolition experts anywhere in the world that have posited that a demolition took place

    There is nothing credible that suggests a demolition

    Despite all this - I could probably whip up a quite convincing conspiracy youtube video on the matter in under an hour. How? Manipulation, distortion, lack of context, editing, suggestion, common fallacies, ominous music, text on the screen, all the usual tricks


  • #90
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,742 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    Lol if you believe 9/11 ya would believe anything


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    There were no explosive demolition sounds recorded when WTC 7 fell

    There is no substantiated evidence that the building was purposefully demolished on that day

    There is no substantiated evidence or consensus of witnesses that claim the building was prepped for demolition (it would have taken weeks if not months to prep a building of that size)

    There is no reasoning provided why they would take the risk of demolishing such a building with explosives

    There are no suspects

    There is no investigation or recognised group of engineers, architects or demolition experts anywhere in the world that have posited that a demolition took place

    There is nothing credible that suggests a demolition

    Despite all this - I could probably whip up a quite convincing conspiracy youtube video on the matter in under an hour. How? Manipulation, distortion, lack of context, editing, suggestion, common fallacies, ominous music, text on the screen, all the usual tricks

    A sound a big bang was heard before the building collapsed that's just fact and your denials are irrelevant. What caused the bang is still a mystery.

    NIST own theories have proven to be wrong multiple times. They claimed no Iron or Molten steel was found even though countless eyewitness saw it and pieces have been recovered in a molten state. They said the building experienced no freefall even though that was proven to be inaccurate. They also stated the girders had no shear studs connections and this again later to be proven inaccurate in a court case Aegis Insurance vs WTC7. NIST has never corrected this mistake in their findings. NIST own computer simulations don't even resemble the event captured on video.

    Plenty of recognised engineers, architects and demolition experts disagree with NIST they just don't work for them.


  • #92
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Remember also that conspiracy theorists claim that thermite was used, which is not an explosive and does not produce a banging sound.

    On top of this, we have the problem that if they indeed used thermite, then it couldn't possibly look like a typical controlled demolition as no demolition has ever used thermite.

    It's funny how they use completely contradictory claims like this.

    Really thermite making a bang at the end of this video and this not what they most likely used if I was to bet. Probably this rumoured nano-thermite explosive and this only speculation.



  • #93
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    Lol if you believe 9/11 ya would believe anything

    FBI officials didn't buy the official narrative of 9/11 either we not alone on this. So we are in good company. Sure they mightn't believe the buildings were brought down by explosives but they know the White House covered up Saudi Arabia involvement in it. Even if we totally wrong on the buildings were taken down by explosives there was a conspiracy on 9/11 and lot of facts are still unknown. The official narrative is not true and that's just a fact when you look at the entirety of the evidence.


  • #94
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    a big bang

    No demolition explosive sounds were heard or recorded. By anyone.


  • #95
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    FBI officials didn't buy the official narrative of 9/11 either we not alone on this.

    A couple of officials differed on specific details.

    They don't think that e.g. Rumsfeld orchestrated it, or that WTC 7 was "blown up"

    There is no credible evidence whatsoever that WTC 7 was blown up.


  • #96
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    A couple of officials differed on specific details.

    They don't think that e.g. Rumsfeld orchestrated it, or that WTC 7 was "blown up"

    There is no credible evidence whatsoever that WTC 7 was blown up.

    The official head guy who investigated the 9/11 attacks for the FBI said the White House covered up Saudi Arabia involvement in it. Don't you think this is should have been investigated probably instead of being stifled at every turn by politicians? The FBI was frustrated they couldn't carry out their work and bring these preparators to justice?

    Sure but that doesn't mean the wider conspiracy doesn't exist. If rogue people in Saudi Arabia with political and religious ties to the Saudi government knew and funded the attacks, is it beyond the realm of possibility this group was working with rogue elements inside the US defence and political and business establishment?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    There was a 20th Hijacker who still been imprisoned still to this day Zacarias Moussaoui,. In his letters and talks to his lawyers.

    He said the operation was planned by Saudi Arabia and US. If was allowed to talk freely in a open court case we probably learn alot about what happened leading up to the attacks.


  • #98
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,205 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The official head guy who investigated the 9/11 attacks for the FBI said the White House covered up Saudi Arabia involvement in it.

    Which head? and source for that?
    Sure but that doesn't mean the wider conspiracy doesn't exist. If rogue people in Saudi Arabia with political and religious ties to the Saudi government knew and funded the attacks, is it beyond the realm of possibility this group was working with rogue elements inside the US defence and political and business establishment?

    AKA an agent (or agents) may have believed Saudi had a bigger role (that some senior figures in Saud potentially knew - which is not the current consensus) but you've used that the make the enormous leap to suggesting fantastical person notions e.g. WTC 7 was blown up

    Do any FBI agents who worked the case support the notion that WTC 7 was blown up? No
    Does any legitimate investigation support it? No
    Does any credible evidence support it? No

    There is no mystery as to how WTC 7 fell. But there are people who have a passion for mysteries - who badly want it to be that way

    They'll use any tool or method they can to discredit the established version of events in order to promote it as a "mystery" or "conspiracy"


  • #99
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    They'll use any tool or method they can to discredit the established version of events in order to promote it as a "mystery" or "conspiracy"
    Like for instance say that it's a standard demolition, that uses thermite, which has never been used for a demolition ever. Then also say there were explosions consistent with demolition charges, which thermite does not produce.
    Then they also say there was molten metal which would not be the result of either explosions or thermite. Molten metal is never present at the site of a controlled demolition.

    All of these different scenarios cannot be true at the same time, but conspiracy theorist all think they are 100% proof that there was a conspiracy.
    Much like how conspiracy theorists use the same evidence to prove there were no planes...


  • #100
    Dr. Bre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,742 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre


    King Mob wrote: »
    Like for instance say that it's a standard demolition, that uses thermite, which has never been used for a demolition ever. Then also say there were explosions consistent with demolition charges, which thermite does not produce.
    Then they also say there was molten metal which would not be the result of either explosions or thermite. Molten metal is never present at the site of a controlled demolition.

    All of these different scenarios cannot be true at the same time, but conspiracy theorist all think they are 100% proof that there was a conspiracy.
    Much like how conspiracy theorists use the same evidence to prove there were no planes...

    If you believe in fairytales you believe 9/11. Sounds like your one of them


  • #101
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,345 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dr. Bre wrote: »
    If you believe in fairytales you believe 9/11. Sounds like your one of them
    No, I believe in the real accounts of 9/11 because you conspiracy theorists have failed to be convincing.
    Like for instance, you are not addressing any of our points. You are only parroting silly catch phrases like the above. Accusing me of believing in fairytales does not address any of the contradictions in the conspiracy theory. Accusing me of being "one of them" (whatever that means) is rather silly and hypocritical when you are accusing people of believing silly things.

    So again, could you explain:
    Why is there no sound of demolition charges?
    Which method do you believe was used, Demolition charges? Thermite? Mini Nukes? Space Lasers?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement