911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's in the NIST report on 7. You can research the validity of the modelling software that they used. If you can bring any facts that dispute it, let's see it.

Nope. NIST only said there must not have been any explosives or else people would have heard them. They totally neglect the fact that people DID hear them. That is the only fact you need to refute that conclusion.

There was no audio analysis of the sounds of the explosions compared with what all various explosives/bombs would produce from the same locations. Ie nothing to actually prove these explosions weren't from bombs/explosives.

You're going to have to try harder.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've seen the light.

Now to indict Bush. And start knitting a noose for Swampfox.

Swampy, This is from your brother in arms

You can lay off the Drama

reply to post by Sean48


No drama involved. Its just a fact. If you had bothered to read everything you would see that I also posted it was the first time that someone had mentioned hanging me as a joke on here. Most of the times its not a joke.

reply to post by bsbray11


Now that you have some noise that could be explosives, all you need do is to find the physical evidence of said explosives.
When you do the calculations of charge weight and location, plus timing and delays, you should be able to determine how much residual physical evidence would be in the wreckage. Knowing this will help you in your search.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Hey Swamp, I had to look in 2 threads to find it, no time to read all.

We may disagree like hell on this topic.

But we probably have a lot in common, and I wish no OS any harm.

Ok, Battle On.

Originally posted by pteridine
Now that you have some noise that could be explosives, all you need do is to find the physical evidence of said explosives.

"Now" that I have "some noise that could be explosives?"

Haha, those "noises" have existed since 9/11. I didn't just establish them or the fact that we don't know what caused them now. It has been like that since 9/11. You have been either ignorant of them or IN DENIAL about them this whole time.

And why would it be MY responsibility to find physical evidence? What makes me the prime candidate for doing the investigation that should have been done in the first place? Posting on an internet forum? Please. It's not my fault if you're uncomfortable with the fact that we don't know what caused those explosions. I say welcome to the club! Ready to call for investigation into these things yet? Of course now that I ask this you will say no, you are happy being ignorant because your mind has to already be made up anyway, and who cares what was causing all those explosions.

When you do the calculations of charge weight and location, plus timing and delays, you should be able to determine how much residual physical evidence would be in the wreckage. Knowing this will help you in your search.

Knowing what exactly would have been detonated would help even more. Have any evidence to demonstrate what it would have had to have been?

Originally posted by bsbray11


Aha! Now you are weaseling out of what you were defending earlier!

I made no such claim here. Look through all the posts you want.

I'm not weaseling out of anything. I see no evidence of bombs.

And apparently neither do you. Case closed, I guess.

Joey said there was proof the explosions weren't caused by explosives/bombs. I guess, despite your coming to his defense when I responded to him, you two aren't in agreement anyway. The explosions sound exactly like explosives/bombs from within the buildings as far as I am able to discern such a thing.

Which is not very far, apparently, since you won't even say definitively that you believe they were made by bombs detonating.

Perhaps you could answer a question. What explosion do you imagine would sound, to a layman, unlike a bomb?

You guys act like that can't possibly be the case but you can't show me why.

I don't actually. I act like it is possible, but wildly improbable to the point where I don't believe it.

It's just you who needs absolute proof. Because you realise that only by demanding such a ludicrous standard of evidence can you continue to believe your absurd fantasy.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm not weaseling out of anything. I see no evidence of bombs.

And apparently neither do you. Case closed, I guess.

The sounds themselves are evidence of bombs/explosives, because that's very well what they could be and there is no reason to doubt that.

I ASKED you for a good reason to doubt that and you haven't been able to give me one. Case closed.

You would make a damn good politician though. You can never admit you said something wrong and when pressed, you just obfuscate and try to confuse the issue. Commendable work comrade.

well, if facts you want here you go, 6 out of 10 of the people sitting on the 911 commission say we need a new investigation. enough said. lets do it...

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
well, if facts you want here you go, 6 out of 10 of the people sitting on the 911 commission say we need a new investigation. enough said. lets do it...

Boy are you going to be disappointed.

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
well, if facts you want here you go, 6 out of 10 of the people sitting on the 911 commission say we need a new investigation. enough said. lets do it...

Boy are you going to be disappointed.

Originally posted by hooper
Boy are you going to be disappointed.

We're already disappointed.

It couldn't get much worse than it already is.

Originally posted by bsbray11

They totally neglect the fact that people DID hear them.

And now you're lying about what is in the NIST report to make your argument.

In regards to 7's report, they specifically say that the minimum size cutter charge would have resulted in ~130 dB blast. None were heard of that magnitude. That is a fact.

Your statement that people did hear "them" is a vague one, at best. The best true statement that you can make from witness statements, is that explosions were heard. it is a fact that you have no clue what caused them. In order to make your argument carry any weight with regards to them being caused by high explosives, you need to bring facts that prove that ~130 dB blasts were heard. They would have been heard everywhere, by everyone, with that level of noise.

You cannot, and anyone reading this knows that.

Your statements are now proven to be a sham.......

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Your statements are now proven to be a sham.......

I read your post, wasn't worth quoting to be honest.

You proved only 1 thing, that you know nothing.

If you want to PROVE something, bring proof.

Stamping your foot and saying I know, is just comical.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In regards to 7's report, they specifically say that the minimum size cutter charge would have resulted in ~130 dB blast. None were heard of that magnitude. That is a fact.

It would not require the same amount of various different kinds of explosives, nor do they all detonate at the same velocity, which is exactly what gives direct rise to the sound created. There WERE explosions heard coming from WTC7 and there is no possible way to tell how loud the source of the explosion would have been. There is no way to tell where in the building they originated, or how the sound would have been attenuated by the time it escaped the building, especially when there is no way to know for certain what specific kind of explosive devices were used to begin with. And I know for a fact NIST did not try every single possible scenario here.

In order to make your argument carry any weight with regards to them being caused by high explosives, you need to bring facts that prove that ~130 dB blasts were heard.

No, YOU have to prove they HAD to have been 130 dB to establish that as a fact first, which is impossible for reasons I just explained. Go ahead and post how NIST tried to prove this, the same holes will still be there.

They would have been heard everywhere, by everyone, with that level of noise.

Who's to say they weren't? There were explosions all throughout the morning that day and people didn't know what the hell was causing them or much else about what exactly was going on. The fact that there ARE multiple, various testimonies to this is evidence enough there were significant explosions heard. There are even videos demonstrating very loud explosions heard from blocks down from the WTC. The argument that "they weren't explosives/bombs because they weren't loud" is complete nonsense and I have to think NIST is just trying to appeal to the least intelligent group of people when they make that argument. With the zealousness people such as yourself demonstrate to constantly defend the OS, they could make up any damned excuse and you KNOW you would be here defending it like it's gospel just the same.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The sounds themselves are evidence of bombs/explosives, because that's very well what they could be and there is no reason to doubt that.

So the fact that there are some loud noises coming from a building that has been hit by an airliner is enough evidence for you. Presumably without the bombs going off there would have been a serene silence.

I ASKED you for a good reason to doubt that and you haven't been able to give me one. Case closed.

Debris, even people, falling from the buildings, some onto cars; detonations from transformers or other electrical items exploding; bolt failures in the buildings' structure.

These are guesses, but they are likely. Bombs are highly unlikely, and I therefore need more evidence than just 'some loud bangs'. Sorry, but that's how people without an agenda evaluate stuff.

You would make a damn good politician though. You can never admit you said something wrong and when pressed, you just obfuscate and try to confuse the issue. Commendable work comrade.

Are you trying to imply that I'm a commie? Is it 1953?

And you haven't answered my question about explosions. So who's obfuscating?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So the fact that there are some loud noises coming from a building that has been hit by an airliner is enough evidence for you. Presumably without the bombs going off there would have been a serene silence.

Save your weak excuses for someone who's more gullible. I have plenty of reason to believe from all I have seen that the sounds of explosions themselves are not the only evidence. They are only the most freaking obvious evidence that people such as yourself have even denied the existence of for years.

I ASKED you for a good reason to doubt that and you haven't been able to give me one. Case closed.

Debris, even people, falling from the buildings, some onto cars; detonations from transformers or other electrical items exploding; bolt failures in the buildings' structure.

None of which have supporting evidence for the explosions I am talking about. Bodies falling made noises but not the noises I am talking about.

I said a good reason to DOUBT that they were explosives/bombs, not all the other various possibilities you can muster up that have even less evidence going for them than explosives/bombs do.

These are guesses, but they are likely.

The only reason you say these are likely but bombs aren't, is because you're extremely biased to the point of coming on here and arguing with me on a daily basis. I come here and try to spread awareness on a daily basis using people such as yourself to provide the would-be counter-arguments because I am convinced 9/11 was an inside job and so I feel I have a personal responsibility as a citizen, just like any citizen, to bring attention to this. The only reason I can think of for YOU coming to continually argue with "conspiracy theorists" is because you really do have a vested emotional stake in this that is totally unrelated to vigilance. There are studies about your kind of addiction and it relates to endorphins being released in your head when you reinforce your political beliefs against opposing views. So if you want to talk about an agenda, look no further than yourself and this addiction you have to arguing with people like me here. Though I am not going to complain because I would rather this information be re-hashed a million times than have a thousand extra people completely unaware of any of it.

And you haven't answered my question about explosions. So who's obfuscating?

Repeat the question.

If you recall, I originally asked YOU what proof you had that these could not be explosives/bombs, and you have STILL not posted it.

Comrade is an expression used by more than just communists. Though I guess you agree that you WOULD make a lovely politician. The type that most people have serious issues with, because they can't freaking be honest even to themselves.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'll call them.

My main fear wouldn't be of "the truth" but of them thinking I was some sort of crazy.

Because our right to request information through the Freedom of Information Act makes us "crazy". OK.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
ATS is not a place to fact find. It is a site to enforce the preconceived notions that are common in the TM.

I guess you won't be staying long?

I guess you won't be spending every single day, hour after hour arguing with those you find "crazy"?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In regards to 7's report, they specifically say that the minimum size cutter charge would have resulted in ~130 dB blast. None were heard of that magnitude. That is a fact.

Are you sure of this?

Some decibel ratings:
0 db Threshold of hearing
30 db Whisper
40 db Buzz of mosquito
50 db Normal conversation
70 db Vacuum cleaner
100 db Subway or power mower
120 db Rock concert
130 db Jackhammer or machine gun
150 db Nearby jet plane

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Now, look what gives a 130 db sound rating.

I have had a jackhammer outside my window before and 2 things never happened.

1. I could close my window and the sound became muffled to the point that I could hardly hear it.

2. My window did not break.

Add in the fact that column 79 was in the middle of a building and you've got one hell of a quite explosion there.

They would have been heard everywhere, by everyone, with that level of noise.

Again, really? Have you ever been to NYC? Guaranteed there is a jackhammer operating somewhere in the city when you visit. Did YOU hear those jackhammers all throughout the city all day long? I can guarantee again that you did not.