PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Awesome! I wasn't even aware of a Building 7, or any building other than 1 and 2. Thanks for this. Definitely controlled demolition, like the towers. But how come everyone who believes it was demolished also believes it was the US gov that did it? Anyone could have set us up the bomb. Just saying. I do believe it was the US gov though. 80% belief.

reply to post by ANOK


What you have is not evidence but a suspicion that something else was involved because the buildings didn't fall like you thought they should have. These buildings and the situation were unique in history so no one has anything to compare any of them to to predict how things should have gone. WTC 7 was an especially unusual structure built over a power substation.
If you are as adept at physics as you claim, why don't you critique the NIST model, in detail, and then build a model of your own showing their errors?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

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?

Speaking of close minded, KJ, you aren't exactly a beacon of logic and reason. Further, you continue to be outraged and attack me, personally. Are you off your medication?
I will lay it out again, just for you. Impacts and fires are what we are sure of. Got that?
Building collapses are what we are sure of. OK?
Now we connect the dots, given the evidence at hand. What are our choices, KJ? What evidence do we have? Fires and impacts brought down the buildings.

Now we could say that the fires and impacts were not causal. That is what we call a theory. Now we can postulate some causal events and discuss evidence for and against.

1. Shaped charge nukes. Can't shape a nuke, EMP and blast wave would have been noticed, radiation would have been detected, etc. No physical evidence reported.
2. Death Ray from Space. Certainly new technology. Unknown effects. No pulse seen. Power requirements unknown, but likely very high.
3. Thermite. Quiet but many charges needed. Can't time effects. Extensive building prep needed. No reports of crews working mysteriously for months, no evidence of unexpended charges, wires, detonators, plans, secret orders, or confessions. No physical evidence reported.
4. Conventional demolitions. Noise of CD not detected. Many charges needed but effects timable. Extensive building prep needed. No reports of crews working mysteriously for months, no evidence of unexploded charges, wires, detonators, plans, secret orders, or confessions. No physical evidence reported.

Based on this, the Death Ray is your best bet. I don't think that a secret death ray is physically likely because of energy requirements, targeting problems from low orbit, and energy losses from geosynchronous orbit. Beam spread and wander at high power levels would have been noticed. As far as rationale, it would seem to be much simpler to run airplanes into buildings and let them fall where they may. The buildings didn't have to actually come down if this was a big conspiracy to start a war. I'm not big on the death ray option but if you like it, give Judy Wood a call.

Originally posted by pteridine

Speaking of close minded, KJ, you aren't exactly a beacon of logic and reason. Further, you continue to be outraged and attack me, personally. Are you off your medication?
I will lay it out again, just for you. Impacts and fires are what we are sure of. Got that?
Building collapses are what we are sure of. OK?
Now we connect the dots, given the evidence at hand. What are our choices, KJ? What evidence do we have? Fires and impacts brought down the buildings.

You are a truly special kind of person. This is exactly the ignorance that I was speaking about. You are connecting dots when you do not have enough dots.

The very fact that you believe you have enough dots to connect is the problem with your logic. You have A and you have B so you decided that A must lead to B. Logic, reality, and life do not work that way.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

You are a truly special kind of person. This is exactly the ignorance that I was speaking about. You are connecting dots when you do not have enough dots.

The very fact that you believe you have enough dots to connect is the problem with your logic. You have A and you have B so you decided that A must lead to B. Logic, reality, and life do not work that way.

So you feel compelled to add a few dots and connect them in some predetermined fashion to ensure that your feelings of conspiracy are satisfied. If there isn't enough Gunderson approved dots to connect, then logic is lacking. I understand that I have been lax in inventing evidence suitable for conspiracy buffs.

Since you are the epitome of logical thought and I am only a "special kind of person," see if you can meet the challenge of postulating a CD theory without the usual "magic method" handwaving and mumble mouth tactics that the truthers are famous for.

Stand up and call out some of those dots, if you can, so they can be tested.
Name the method, geometry, schedule, personnel required, materials required, time required, system, and rationale for such a dangerous undertaking.
If you have time, you can also describe the complex coverup that allows only the elite who watch annotated youtube videos to discover the plot while we sheeple are kept in the dark.
I'll bet the NWO masterminds just forgot that there was video coverage of the events.

Originally posted by pteridine
I'm telling you that since there is no other evidence, there is no choice but to conclude, based on the evidence

Already you are making no sense.

If you don't have evidence, then you can't come to a scientific conclusion. Unless you don't care if your conclusion is meaningless and based on nothing, but that's not a SCIENTIFIC conclusion. Specifically evidence for a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between the impact/fires and the collapses. IT DOESN'T EXIST. "I saw it happen on TV" may be "proof" enough for you and your high school buddies, but to a scientist or engineer, you know those guys are actually trying a little harder than that, because if they played that stupid ("I saw it on TV" ) they would be fired for total incompetence. (And many of them should be anyway.)

If you have evidence, post it. If you don't, then you don't, end of discussion, and stop pretending like you do.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

You demand proof that impacts and fires brought down the buildings. I demand proof that there was anything else. What else was there?
What do you think the cause was, BS? Postulate a testable theory, if you can.
If you have no clue, you can always revert to the defaults. "It didn't look right; I don't know but there are discrepancies; There should be a reinvestigation to satisfy unanswered questions," and similar mindless statements.
Surely, your vaunted technical education coupled with your fertile imagination and vast experience in engineering can provide at least one testable theory.

[edit on 3/1/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
You demand proof that impacts and fires brought down the buildings. I demand proof that there was anything else. What else was there?

That's also not how science works.

Unless you are admitting your opinion about what happened on 9/11 has nothing to support it, you should POST what supports it. How many posts now and you have been completely unable to do this? Too many.

Postulate a testable theory, if you can.

I don't have one, that was NOT my job, and I'm not the one claiming to have all the answers here and to know what specifically brought down the towers. So I have nothing to prove, nothing to test, and I don't claim to know. YOU DO. Unless you admit you are just as clueless as I am, post your evidence, or shut up already.

reply to post by doodums

Awesome! I wasn't even aware of a Building 7, or any building other than 1 and 2. Thanks for this. Definitely controlled demolition, like the towers. But how come everyone who believes it was demolished also believes it was the US gov that did it? Anyone could have set us up the bomb. Just saying. I do believe it was the US gov though. 80% belief.

So did not know that WTC 7 also collapse on 9/11 - considering tha video
has been shown thousands of times on Network/cable channels find that
hard to believe

Then you proclaim it was a "controlled demolition"?

There were half dozen other buildings destroyed or damaged beyond repair at WTC complex that day

Now are they also controlled demolition?

WTC 3 - Marriot Hotel, crushed by debris from collapses of WTC 1 & 2

WTC 3 was first partially crushed by the steel skeleton fragments from the South Tower and then further crushed by those from the North Tower. In each case the rubble, falling from as much as 1300 feet, collapsed regions spanning several floors but was arrested by the building's steel structure. This behavior contrasts with the officially accepted story that progressive collapse entirely destroyed each Tower.

WTC 4 - crushed by debris from collapse, - torn down

WTC 5 - damaged by debris from collapse, suffered internal collapses from fires, torn down

WTC 6 - damaged by debris from collapses and fires - torn down

WTC 4, 5, and 6 are eight and nine story steel-framed office buildings, located on the north and east sides of the WTC Plaza, that were built circa 1970. The buildings had a range of occupancies, including standard office and retail space. There were underground parking facilities and access to the WTC Concourse, as well as the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) and New York City subway system.

Because of their close proximity to WTC 1 and WTC 2, all three buildings were subjected to severe debris impact damage when the towers collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. Most of WTC 4 collapsed when impacted by the exterior column debris from WTC 2; the remaining section had a complete burnout. WTC 5 and WTC 6 were impacted by exterior column debris from WTC 1 that caused large sections of localized collapse and subsequent fires spread throughout most of the buildings. All three buildings also were able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred.

30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall) - dmaged by collapse of WTC 7, being torn down

Portions of the south facade from the 15th floor collapsed. a vertical section of the perimeter wall extending 5 floors down from the setback at the center of the south facade was raked away. Local collapse also occurred at the southwest corner. The majority of the glass panes were knocked out on the south façade, in a triangular pattern that extended to the full width of the base. Floors 9 through 14 had two collapsed bays, and floors 3 through 6 had three collapsed bays. A considerable amount of debris was on the 8th floor.

130 Liberty St (Deutsche Bank) - damaged by collapse of WTC 2, suffered water damage and mold, being torn down

The collapse of 2 World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building and destroyed the entire interior of the structure. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up but it was decided that the 42 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss. Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.

reply to post by pteridine


I've told you where I stand. Active thermite was found in the dust of the World Trade Center towers. This is evidence of a controlled demolition.

Until you type these words:

"The WTC 1, 2, and 7 buildings are the only known steel framed high rises in history to suffer a global collapse due to fire."

Originally posted by pteridine
So you feel compelled to add a few dots and connect them in some predetermined fashion to ensure that your feelings of conspiracy are satisfied. If there isn't enough Gunderson approved dots to connect, then logic is lacking. I understand that I have been lax in inventing evidence suitable for conspiracy buffs.

Since you are the epitome of logical thought and I am only a "special kind of person," see if you can meet the challenge of postulating a CD theory without the usual "magic method" handwaving and mumble mouth tactics that the truthers are famous for.

Stand up and call out some of those dots, if you can, so they can be tested.
Name the method, geometry, schedule, personnel required, materials required, time required, system, and rationale for such a dangerous undertaking.
If you have time, you can also describe the complex coverup that allows only the elite who watch annotated youtube videos to discover the plot while we sheeple are kept in the dark.
I'll bet the NWO masterminds just forgot that there was video coverage of the events.

Thank you for making my point crystal clear for me. You assume you have all the dots and you make connections that are not there. You also assume that I claim that same thing.

Show me where I once claimed that I know exactly what happened that day. Please point out where I said that I had all the dots and I connected them. Can you? No. You cannot.

You are not using bad logic, you are not using any logic at all. Just because you think you have all the dots and the right connections does not mean that people like me are also as arrogant. The whole point of most truthers is to find the rest of the dots.

You are happy just taking the dots that they gave you.

Do you know what a staged crime scene is? That is when the police arrive and all the dots make a false connection. This is why they investigate instead of assuming. People know how to offer you false dots to connect. You fell for it even think you are so smart that you have dots no one else has.

You are not being logical, you are being emotional. If you cannot have an honest conversation about the topic, stop posting here. It seems simple to me. You cannot make any baskets so you are just wasting court space for someone more productive and honest.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Are you referring to the Jones' paper when you claim "active thermitic....?"

If so, are you prepared to discuss the paper?

reply to post by bsbray11


You honestly have no idea what could have happened? All that technical education and you can't even postulate a testable theory?

Which default statement would you like to select from? "I don't know but there are discrepancies...." should fit you.

Originally posted by pteridine
You honestly have no idea what could have happened? All that technical education and you can't even postulate a testable theory?

Seriously. I have explained this repeatedly and you STILL act like you are too stupid to comprehend what I am asking. I know you're not. You know full well I am asking YOU for proof. Not a bunch of rhetorical questions. This is "you time," not "me time," because I am asking YOU why you are SO DAMNED POSITIVE that it was planes and fires alone. Do you base your opinions on evidence, or are you just a troll? I am not making positive claims, I am asking questions. To you. Which you are not answering. Because you keep acting like you are too dumb to comprehend a simple, simple, simple request for evidence. I am not responding to you anymore here unless you actually post the evidence I'm asking for, that supports your OPINION that the fires and plane impacts alone caused the collapses.

You know when you come here just to mock people, and someone asks YOU for your evidence and all you can do is act like you're stupid to what they're asking, that's called trolling. Any high schooler can do it, and you're the proof of that.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Show me where I once claimed that I know exactly what happened that day. Please point out where I said that I had all the dots and I connected them. Can you? No. You cannot.

You are not being logical, you are being emotional.

It is you who are being emotional, as evidenced by your previous personal attacks. I asked you to propose a theory and what did you come up with? "Show me where I once claimed that I know exactly what happened that day." I didn't claim that you knew anything, I challenged you to propose a testable theory. I hope that you don't have to go to my previous post to BSBray to select a truther default excuse.

As to the staged crime scene comment, that is an excellent example of your imagination. I think that a testable theory is within your capability.

reply to post by bsbray11


So you expect me to provide answers to you on demand but will not even postulate a testable theory. That seems like a two sided discussion. Maybe you should consider the difference between the cause of collapse and the mechanism of collapse.

Have you selecetd a default truther excuse, yet?

Coming up for nine years and no alternative Truth Movement narrative, no alternative theories, no attempt to prove anything beyond picking a few holes in an invented straw man called the "OS".

And more and more of the usual "SHOW ME WHERE I CLAIMED ANYTHING AT ALL!!!"

You didn't. Which is why you're getting nowhere.

Originally posted by pteridine
It is you who are being emotional, as evidenced by your previous personal attacks.

What personal attacks? Please point them out to me. Why do you need to make things up all the time? How does that help you spread the "truth?"

I asked you to propose a theory and what did you come up with?

If I ask you to wash my car, can I point out that 9/11 was an inside job because you did not wash it for me? I know what you asked. I never claimed to know what really happened. This is what you are having such a hard time understanding. I am telling you that I know the story I have been told makes little to no sense in the real world. I know it is incomplete and needs to be investigated further. Why do I need to have an alternate theory?

I didn't claim that you knew anything, I challenged you to propose a testable theory. I hope that you don't have to go to my previous post to BSBray to select a truther default excuse.

I do not need an excuse. Just because you asked does not make it a valid request I must submit to. The fact that you are even asking shows you do not understand anything I have said on any of these boards so far. If you know I have never claimed to have the real story, what good is asking me for a guess? As long as you want to bring up old news like that, you will remember that you stopped asking about it for a few days after I pointed out where you had told a blatant lie? Really want to walk down memory lane?

Stop asking for something I will not be giving you. I never offered. You can ask all you like, it is not going to happen. If that somehow makes you feel like it is proof that you are correct, then you are all done talking to me, no? If that was all you needed, then you got your answer. Unlike you, I will not pretend to know a conclusion I am still seeking all the facts to form. If you like "knowing" something that does not have factual support, then good for you. That is not it works on the other side so give it up.

As to the staged crime scene comment, that is an excellent example of your imagination. I think that a testable theory is within your capability.

Of course it is within my capability but any theory I were to suggest would be as bad as the OS. I do not have all the facts and I know I do not have all the facts so coming up with a conclusion would be intellectually dishonest and pointless. You seem ok with it though.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11

 

So you expect me to provide answers to you on demand but will not even postulate a testable theory. That seems like a two sided discussion. Maybe you should consider the difference between the cause of collapse and the mechanism of collapse.

Have you selecetd a default truther excuse, yet?

I want you to wash my car. It has nothing to do with the truth of this situation but I want it done. You ask people to come up with a testable theory just because you want one and you will not even wash my car?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
any theory I were to suggest would be as bad as the OS. I do not have all the facts and I know I do not have all the facts so coming up with a conclusion would be intellectually dishonest and pointless.

And yet you seem quite happy to come to the conclusion that it was "an inside job"?

Or do you not now think that?