PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
Planes damaged the towers which damaged WTC 7. Fires damaged WTC 7. WTC 7 collapsed.
What did it?
In the absence of any other evidence, it must be concluded that structural damage and fires were the cause.

I don't understand how you can post pretending you are being so logical about these subjects, and then throw everything out the window to say unless this automatically-assumed theory is proven wrong, then therefore it must be right. What other science do you know of that works this way? "Prove me wrong or else I'm right." Seriously, what kind of standard for evidence is that?

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't understand how you can post pretending you are being so logical about these subjects, and then throw everything out the window to say unless this automatically-assumed theory is proven wrong, then therefore it must be right. What other science do you know of that works this way? "Prove me wrong or else I'm right." Seriously, what kind of standard for evidence is that?

And I don't understand how you can post pretending you are being so logical about these subjects, and then throw everything out the window to say that because you suspect something that that is proof of a conspiracy. The basis for many of the conspiracy theories is "gut feelings." Someone thinks the building should have collapsed differently so therefore there was a demolition. Based on what? Based on someone's gut feelings.
"Seriously, what kind of standard for evidence is that?"

It isn't evidence at all, of course, which is why conspiracy folks will be speculating forever. The obvious reason for the WTC7 collapse is damage and fires. Is there evidence for anything else, other than feelings and videos with overlaid arrows and lines?
Blasting caps, wires, hacksaws, unexpended demolition charges, secret plans, and deathbed confessions are all lacking. The conclusion must be that, in the absence of additional evidence, the cause of the collapse was damage and fire.
If you'd like, you can claim anything and ask others to prove it wrong. Many others use this backwards approach. Prove that it wasn't a super secret invisible explosive that made no noise and left no traces. You can't even prove such a material doesn't exist because it is 'secret.' Physics tells you it doesn't exist but who wants to try to explain explosives on a conspiracy site.

Originally posted by pteridine
And I don't understand how you can post pretending you are being so logical about these subjects, and then throw everything out the window to say that because you suspect something that that is proof of a conspiracy.

1) I never claimed to have proof of a conspiracy. Stop LYING. It's sad that you even have to RESORT to making up stuff just to be able to respond to me and save face.

2) The "official story" having no proof to begin with is the only reason you need to doubt it. Unlike you, I don't have blind faith in it to the day I die. Before you ask me to prove my own opinions, please refer to (1) above.

You have no evidence. Yet you claim your opinion has been proven. No, it hasn't.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ANOK

 

Planes damaged the towers which damaged WTC 7. Fires damaged WTC 7. WTC 7 collapsed.
What did it?
In the absence of any other evidence, it must be concluded that structural damage and fires were the cause.

I know your hypothesis, repeating it is not going to suddenly make me forget what I know about physics and claim you're right. I've been debating this for over 6 years there is nothing new you can show me to make me change my mind.

Absence of any other evidence, are you kidding, in denial, or just dense?

PHYSICAL evidence of explosives are NOT needed when the videos of the events clearly show collapses that could not possibly happen from asymmetrical damage and fires. Visual evidence is enough to shed doubt on the official version of events.

You're wrong in your assumption, there IS evidence that points to a controlled demo of some kind, not PROOF but evidence. Do I have to go through that evidence again, or maybe you could start actually reading and understand what people are saying instead of waving it away screaming 'the plane, the plane'....

And seeing as NO ONE did any searching of the site for physical evidence of explosives then how can you expect there to be any?

(Why did you make that replay btw, just to say something? Because you're just closing your eyes and ears and repeating the same garbage that has been shown to be untrue. Do you like spreading lies? You're only confident in your claims because you have an authority to appeal to, you don't want to accept that authorities lie, and often.)

Originally posted by bsbray11

1) I never claimed to have proof of a conspiracy. Stop LYING. It's sad that you even have to RESORT to making up stuff just to be able to respond to me and save face.

2) The "official story" having no proof to begin with is the only reason you need to doubt it. Unlike you, I don't have blind faith in it to the day I die. Before you ask me to prove my own opinions, please refer to (1) above.

You have no evidence. Yet you claim your opinion has been proven. No, it hasn't.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

You seem angry. Is it because you can't defend your position? Perpetual outrage doesn't reflect well on your purported educational level.

I don't "need to doubt" anything in the absence of evidence. The evidence I have is the events of the day. Airplanes crashing, debris falling, fires burning out of control. No other evidence is available. Do you have any? If there were a reinvestigation, what would be reinvestigated? Would you propose to look more closely at the lack of evidence? "Yep, still nothing, BS, should we look again?"
What do you think the conclusions would be, BS? Not to your liking, most probably. The CTer's are going to have to grind on with a perpetual rehash and superfluous rants. Meanwhile, you will all be playing into the hand of those Bush appointees who dropped the ball. You will spend your days timing collapses, looking at puffs, listening to noise, and believing those who lead you away from the things you should actually investigate.

Originally posted by ANOK
PHYSICAL evidence of explosives are NOT needed when the videos of the events clearly show collapses that could not possibly happen from asymmetrical damage and fires. Visual evidence is enough to shed doubt on the official version of events.

You and many others make the claim that "videos of the events clearly show collapses that could not possibly happen from asymmetrical damage and fires."
Did anyone who makes those claims ever show that "could not possibly happen" part other than with some hand waving and CD selling?"
It might be tough to prove the "could not possibly" part.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
1) I never claimed to have proof of a conspiracy. Stop LYING. It's sad that you even have to RESORT to making up stuff just to be able to respond to me and save face.

2) The "official story" having no proof to begin with is the only reason you need to doubt it. Unlike you, I don't have blind faith in it to the day I die. Before you ask me to prove my own opinions, please refer to (1) above.

You have no evidence. Yet you claim your opinion has been proven. No, it hasn't.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

You seem angry. Is it because you can't defend your position? Perpetual outrage doesn't reflect well on your purported educational level.

How about you respond to what I actually said? If anything I'm frustrated because of how stupid you are being. You seem to think evidence can only go one way here and you're totally excused somehow from having to post any to support the "official story." Why? Do you think it's right automatically just because stupid people believe it? Where is the evidence? You're the one making positive claims remember, not me. The only positive claim I am making is that you have no evidence. And you not posting any only proves that.

I don't "need to doubt" anything in the absence of evidence. The evidence I have is the events of the day. Airplanes crashing, debris falling, fires burning out of control. No other evidence is available.

That is not evidence and you know it. Or else, fine, my evidence is in the events of the day, too. You know, all the explosions going off and destroying things and injuring people in the lobby and basements, molten metal pouring out of the building where it was damaged. Case closed.


So you DON'T know what evidence or proof really are. Not surprising. Go back to high school (if you're not still there anyway). Pointing at your TV screen and saying "that's what I saw and that's what they said so obviously that's what happened" after all these years of lie after lie being exposed is so incredibly stupid that I'm surprised people still respond to you at all here.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Or else, fine, my evidence is in the events of the day, too. You know, all the explosions going off and destroying things and injuring people in the lobby and basements, molten metal pouring out of the building where it was damaged. Case closed.

Case reopened.
Show where the purported explosions were causal in the collapse. You can't.
Show where the molten metal was identified and how it caused collapse. You can't.
There is no evidence of anything but airplane impacts and uncontrolled fires.
You and your fellow travellers are confusing evidence with suspicion. All you can do is demand explanations for every event that you personally don't understand and throw internet tantrums when people don't provide them.

Welcome to reality.

Originally posted by pteridine
Case reopened.
Show where the purported explosions were causal in the collapse. You can't.

Okay, now you're going to pretend you're being logical again.

Demonstrate how what you saw on TV proves that the towers collapsed due to fires and impacts alone. Ie that THOSE were causal to the collapses. You can't.

Again I am NOT claiming I have proof of a conspiracy. I am saying YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Stop playing stupid and make your case or else shut up already. If seeing something on TV is "proof" to you then you must make it a point to regularly confuse fiction with reality. All you are doing is twisting my words and then playing dumb when I repeatedly ask you why you are so flipping sure of yourself, with your armchair degree from having watched your TV.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


What else is there? Do you have any evidence of anything else? Pretend to be logical and tell me. You have suspicions but no evidence.

I also note that you are playing your education cards again. Those are a losing hand and impress no one.

Originally posted by pteridine
What else is there? Do you have any evidence of anything else? Pretend to be logical and tell me. You have suspicions but no evidence.

And now you play stupid again. Do you know what evidence is or don't you? Having evidence for YOUR OPINIONS has nothing to do with ME. It isn't "I'm right until you prove me wrong." That is STUPID.

I also note that you are playing your education cards again.

I call it like I see it. So I guess you are still in high school then?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Are you up to a defense of Jones' paper or did you post it for amusement purposes? I say it's wrong and bad science. People who back it don't understand it.
Where do you stand?

reply to post by bsbray11


I could just as easily ask you why you continue to play stupid. Impact and fires are all there is. Are you asking me for proof of impact and fires?

Your arrogance is showing BS. A barely dry diploma in Engineering Electronics, or whatever you claimed, is not something to use as a cudgel.

I see some people are blaming the Bush administration for 911. There is a shadow government in the world that runs things. I don't believe a sitting American President would do something like this. I don't think an administration could keep a lid on something like this. I do believe a shadow government, whose very existence is not recognized by the public, could start wars, blow up towers, etc. I suspect the shadow government is behind this.

Originally posted by pteridine
I could just as easily ask you why you continue to play stupid. Impact and fires are all there is. Are you asking me for proof of impact and fires?

I'm asking you for proof that these things were directly responsible for the collapse. You know damned well this is what I'm asking. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU ARE DUMB TO WHAT I'M ASKING FROM YOU.

Just because they happened does not automatically mean they're why the building collapsed unless you are completely ignorant of what the words "evidence" or "proof" mean in the first place (which is probably also the case). Stop acting like you are totally dense and either post the evidence or admit you don't know of any.

Your arrogance is showing BS. A barely dry diploma in Engineering Electronics, or whatever you claimed, is not something to use as a cudgel.

I didn't say anything about my education. But you literally have no idea what in the hell you are talking about and your high school "credentials" reflect that. At least I know proof consists of more than just watching something on TV. If you want to put on like you're more mature than you are then back it up with something more than an obnoxious attitude, like actual technical evidence. I'm not the one making positive claims about what happened here, YOU ARE. PROVE THEM. Preferably before you graduate. Almost 2 years here already and so far NOTHING from you to prove the towers came down from impacts and fires.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm telling you that since there is no other evidence, there is no choice but to conclude, based on the evidence, that impacts and/or fires brought the buildings down. I selected both because deconvoluting them is difficult and the fires are dependent on the impacts. You can claim one or the other if you like. That is all you really have to choose from, at this point, unless you can make a case against impacts and fires.

If you found new evidence that can change the conclusions, bring it forward.

Until new evidence is presented, you can pick fires or impacts or both as the cause for the collapses.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I'm telling you that since there is no other evidence, there is no choice but to conclude, based on the evidence, that impacts and/or fires brought the buildings down.

Yeah and you said that to me also, still doesn't make it true though.

In fact that is the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard.

Again what evidence? There is none for your claim. Nothing in those events points to a collapse due to fire, or impacts. So your claim is baseless.

But there IS evidence that some other force than fire and impacts was involved, i.e. the lack of resistance, which is proved by the symmetry of the collapses (you can't have symmetry and resistance in a chaotic event). Something other than fire and impacts took the resistance away. What that force was is what is up for speculation, not the FACT that another force HAD to be involved for the events to match known physics, i.e. global symmetrical collapse through the path of most resistance, (and I know you'll try to deny even that happened )

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I'm telling you that since there is no other evidence, there is no choice but to conclude, based on the evidence, that impacts and/or fires brought the buildings down.

That is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have ever read here. You think you know for a fact what happened because you did not see evidence of something else. I hope your doctor is at least more in touch with reality than you.

There is no evidence supporting what you believe but you believe it anyway. You claim there is no reason to believe anything else because you do not see evidence of something else. You do not claim to see any evidence for your idea either so why is one ok as a default but the other takes evidence?

Basically what you have said is that you know nothing of physics and obediently believe what you were told in spite of all you can see if you look.

At least you admit you are closed minded but that just makes me wonder why you are even here then. Why waste time posting on these boards when you just admitted that the only thing you will believe is whatever you want to believe and evidence be damned?