PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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?

I certainly would not claim to know that as a fact 100%. That is the difference between you and me. I never claimed to know the real truth of what happened, just what I think and suspect. You claim to know the truth. A decade later and I am still waiting for that proof. Do I think it was an inside job? Of course on at least some level if even it was to simply ignore the warnings. I believe there is more to it than that but I would not be so arrogant as to claim I know for a fact anything. That is kind of the point.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

I certainly would not claim to know that as a fact 100%. That is the difference between you and me.

I've never claimed that. In fact if you looked through what I've written it's quite the opposite. I think that on the balance of probabilities the Truth Movement is talking total rubbish and that Arab terrorists hijacked the planes and tried to fly them into four buildings, succeeding in three cases.

I don't know this to be 100 per cent true, but then there are many things I don't know for an absolute fact are true but which I operate on the basis of being most likely factual. The existence of Jamaica, for example. Or the fact that my father is my biological father.

I never claimed to know the real truth of what happened, just what I think and suspect.

I don't think REMISNE would like that much. It doesn't sound like it would hold up in a court of law.

I'm joking of course. Normal people don't need court standard evidence for most of their beliefs, and you're free to entertain whatever notions you want. But subjecting the "OS" to an unrealistic standard of proof while having no competing theory for what happened is not a basis for logical progression and will not win you many converts.

You claim to know the truth.

Nope. Not by my understanding of the term.

A decade later and I am still waiting for that proof.

I think you'll be waiting forever. The combination of your unreasonable standard for "proof" and the US government's incompetence (and subsequent desire to bury that incompetence) means you'll never get what you want.

Do I think it was an inside job? Of course on at least some level if even it was to simply ignore the warnings. I believe there is more to it than that but I would not be so arrogant as to claim I know for a fact anything. That is kind of the point.

Fair enough. I'm pretty much the same. We're both looking at the same (lack of) evidence. I just don't have the urge to see a conspiracy.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I've never claimed that. In fact if you looked through what I've written it's quite the opposite.

I never said you did claim that. You jumped into a conversation I was having with pteridine and started questioning me. Since the rest of your post is in defense of this absurd insinuation, it is all garbage.

Here is a hint for the future. Do not get super defensive over things people did not say if you want to have any credibility with the point you are trying to make.

Unless you can show me where I accused you of claiming anything, we are all done.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I've never claimed that. In fact if you looked through what I've written it's quite the opposite.

I never said you did claim that. You jumped into a conversation I was having with pteridine and started questioning me. Since the rest of your post is in defense of this absurd insinuation, it is all garbage.

Here is a hint for the future. Do not get super defensive over things people did not say if you want to have any credibility with the point you are trying to make.

Unless you can show me where I accused you of claiming anything, we are all done.

Nice try. You wrote

I certainly would not claim to know that as a fact 100%. That is the difference between you and me.

The difference is presumably that you think I do "claim to know that as a fact 100%.

So I guess we're not all done. Try again.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

The difference is presumably that you think I do "claim to know that as a fact 100%.

So I guess we're not all done. Try again.

Then you had no need to butt into a conversation I was having with someone else to defend their stance. Had you not done so, there would be no room to assume. Apparently mommy never taught you why you need to mind your own business. I asked you to show me where I accused you of claiming to know what happened. All you can do is where I pointed out that I am less arrogant than you. You burst into a conversation you were not involved in to make what point? Now you need to defend it by pointing out that I called you arrogant and you did not understand it? Cool. Now are we done or do you really have a point here?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


No. You said I "claim to know that as a fact 100%. That is the difference between you and me." You didn't even use the word arrogant. And now you're pretending that I've broken some kind of public (note - public) forum etiquette so that you can avoid admitting that you made an error.

reply to post by bsbray11


Here is my argument again. 9/11; WTC subset.
1. Airplanes struck the WTC towers and set them afire.
2. Debris from the impact seriously damaged other WTC buildings and set them afire.
3. These events resulted in some buildings collapsing completely and some partially.
4. Some people want their questions about collapse mechanism answered because the physical events did not proceed the way they felt that they should. They don’t necessarily claim CD.
5. Overlaid on this, others want to claim CD for their own reasons and co-opt the previous set of people for their own ends, in a mutual feedback loop.
6. The first set, where I classify you, has no alternative theory and are curious. They want the mechanism of collapse and think that the investigation was rushed, glossed over, not complete, etc. Generally, they want a reinvestigation and point out what they think are inconsistencies. Secretly, some of these may also want a conspiracy and work toward that end.
7. The second set are hardcore conspiracy seekers and are desperate to prove some conspiracy involving the US Government, New World Order, Bilderbergers, Masons, Rosicrucians, Illumanati, etc. Most will say they want a reinvestigation when the subject is broached. They have theories but these are incomplete and poorly thought out, often requiring secret, undetectable devices that leave no evidence; the conspiracy buff's go-to argument.
8. The actual evidence is limited to impacts and fires. There are many attempts to show CD, usually by analysis of publically available videos, but those are fruitless. The initial assumptions made by the analysts determine the outcomes and the bias toward finding evidence of CD is obvious.
A few attempts have been made to analyze available physical evidence. One presentation looks at deep corrosion found on a metal structural member recovered from the debris field. This is interesting but no one knows the timeline for such corrosion.
The Jones paper purports to find evidence for thermite. It is poorly done and is trying to find support for a predetermined conclusion. Only those without a background in chemistry give it any credence.
9. If there is no evidence for anything else, impacts and fires must be the cause. The mechanisms may be in question, but the root causes for collapse are impacts and fires.
10. A reinvestigation without any new evidence will lead to the same conclusions. It is possible that the collapse mechanisms would be refined but without new evidence, a reinvestigation is unlikely.
11. Given the elapsed time since the attack, it is unlikely that there will be any new physical evidence discovered. All that can be searched would be records peripheral to the event and those records are generally not public. If there was a grand insider plot, the insiders would leave no records, in any case.
12. There is also no rationale for a grand insider plot involving CD. The buildings did not have to fall to effect any responses by the Bush Administration that are claimed by the CD people. Without CD, there would have been no evidence to cover up.
Destruction of secrets purportedly in WTC 7 would not have been reason to collapse the building and take the chance that some records would survive.

Conclusions: Impacts and fires caused the damage; there is no evidence for anything else. The exact mechanisms are open to discussion. Because they are not known [or may never be known] does not prove CD. A reinvestigation is highly unlikely without new evidence, which is even less likely.

Originally posted by pteridine
Here is my argument again. 9/11; WTC subset.
1. Airplanes struck the WTC towers and set them afire.

But the planes did not casue major damage and the fire did not burn hot enough or long enough to cause a total collaspe.

2. Debris from the impact seriously damaged other WTC buildings and set them afire.

If building 7 would have collasped on its own it would have fallen to the side that was damaged and not in its footprint.

8. The actual evidence is limited to impacts and fires.

Most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

reply to post by REMISNE

Most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

You keep repeating this claim in such a way to lead me to believe that you know for certain the total quantity of the reports, what is your basis for saying "most"?

Do you know the exact number of the all the reports relevant to 9/11 and a comparative list of released reports or are you just engaging in inflammatory rhetoric?

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

So you agree they didn't fall as they should have..

You don't think that is enough to warrant a new independent investigation? Or is that what you're afraid of?

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.

Unique events and unusual structures do not change the laws of physics, sorry. WTC7 being an unusual structure (whatever that means) does not change the way physics works.

You also have NO idea why the 'unique structure' would make a difference do you? It's just words that you can throw around so you can argue with 'truthers', and in your ignorance you think you're saying something intelligent. Can you prove me wrong and explain your reasoning, without pointing me to someone else's opinion, or claims?

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?

Adept at physics? You don't need to be adept at physics to understand this, what I was taught in high school is enough (even though I have lots of experience and engineering courses as well).

What NIST model? They built a model of the collapsed buildings and tested them? I thought they just did computer simulations that they had to increase the numbers beyond reality to work?

I don't need a model, what we know about physics, the reaction of steel to fire, the way thermal energy is transferred, Newtons laws of motion, the physics of colliding bodies, angular momentum, resistance/friction. This is all we need to know to understand we're being lied to.

It is the governments responsibility to respond to the demands of it's citizens. I have to prove NOTHING, it's up to the government to answer mine and others doubts in their explanation of an event that killed 3,000 people, and started an illegal war against foreign nations that has resulted in the deaths of thousands more.

How can you so easily just hand wave it all away, you guys have NO conscience? Why are you so scared of the truth? Why are you so desperate to keep the truth from being exposed? If we're so wrong what have you to worry about? Or are you really that dense and arrogant that you really think what you say actually makes sense, that because an authority said it then you're arrogantly confident in it's truth?

NIST did not explain the collapses of the towers, only tried to explain away the collapse 'initiation', once the collapse started they have no explanation as to why it continued to collapse through the path of most resistance symmetrically. Have you stopped to ask yourself why?

NIST claims collapse was inevitable, what exactly do they base this claim on, remember there is NO precedent for such an event. And NO, building damage and fire is not a unique event requiring a whole new physics 'phenomena'...And NO, building design does not make them more susceptible to complete global collapse from fires.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by downisreallyup


Yes, obviously a controlled demolition.,but then so were the twin towers, in my opinion.

Originally posted by pteridine
Here is my argument again. 9/11; WTC subset.

Can you tell me which of the 12 points you listed offers the conclusive proof that the fires and planes alone were the cause of collapse and why? You started off with the same "planes hit the building" stupidity and then degraded into just ranting and numbering the paragraphs of your rant, that had absolutely nothing to do with the towers themselves, only your perceptions of who's asking for re-investigation.

It's no wonder you're here arguing every day. You don't know what would satisfy a real investigation in the first place. I really am about done talking to you. You need to take a physics or engineering course where they make you actually prove the laws of physics, so you can understand how science is proven rigorously. It has nothing to do with your social interpretations of other people, I'll give you that much of a clue. Your thinking on this subject is as clear as mud. You'll keep arguing with us until the end of time as long as you don't even understand how things are proven scientifically to begin with.

Just graduate high school first, opt to take a science or engineering course and come back in a few years with what you've learned about empiricism and the standards technical investigations actually have to follow to conclude ANYTHING.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
You started off with the same "planes hit the building" stupidity

Oh dear, another "truther" who does not think planes hit the WTC buildings, what do you think, that they used holograms?

Beliefs like yours are even considered silly by most other "truthers"!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
You started off with the same "planes hit the building" stupidity

Oh dear, another "truther" who does not think planes hit the WTC buildings, what do you think, that they used holograms?

Beliefs like yours are even considered silly by most other "truthers"!

I really feel sorry for you man. Really, honestly, I feel sorry for you.

I do believe the planes hit the towers. Just worry about responding to the posts I actually address to you. I'll try my best to make sure they're simple enough for you to understand. Okay?

"Just graduate high school first"

Even with today's lower than dirt educational standards, I think you are asking the impossible from some of these Official Fairy Tale believers.

"Oh dear, another "truther" who does not think planes hit the WTC buildings, what do you think, that they used holograms?"

And right on cue, the above statement proves my point.

reply to post by pteridine


I thought we were discussing it...

Again, I need to see these words from you in order to continue these time wasting deliberations:

"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."

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I mean discuss the technical merits of the Bentham paper.

Of course the WTC towers are the first steel framed high rises in history to suffer a global collapse due to impacts from aircraft and subsequent uncontrolled fires.

reply to post by bsbray11


Remember the cause of collapse and the mechanism of collapse are not the same. You haven't written too many technical papers, have you?

The only causes for which there is evidence are the impacts and fires. Based only on the evidence, BS, what could have caused the collapses?

Friendly Reminder

Please, let's try to keep the thread focused on discussion of the topic:

PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Let's not get personal

Thanks for your cooperation

reply to post by hooper


The Pentagon is the most heavily watched building in the world. Last I checked we've seen TWO videos. Other videos, were confiscated by the FBI and have never been released.

What are you referring to exactly?