PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
The Pentagon is the most heavily watched building in the world.

Care to back that claim up with some proof? Who exactly claims the "Pentagon is the most heavily watched building in the world"?

reply to post by pteridine


No, they are the first steel framed high rises in history to suffer a global collapse from fire.

If you can find another steel framed high rise that collapsed from fire, please post it here. You may also post a steel framed high rise that collapsed from an airplane collision and fire.

If you don't do that, than this is statement you need to give to people on this forum when you attempt to fill their heads.

Any other statement would be unethical.

Also, it's not on me to defend the paper. It's on you to review it critically. This is what I did with the NIST report, which I don't think you actually read, and I'm pretty sure there was much skimming going on in reference to my posts. Which seems to be the MO of many of the trolls on this forum.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
you may also post a steel framed high rise that collapsed from an airplane collision and fire.

WTC1 and 2 collapsed from a airplane collision and fire. Care to name any other steel framed high rise that have been hit by a airliner?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

I have reviewed it critically and condemned it as bad science. If you disagree, explain why it is good science. You may get help if you need it or you may just ignore the challenge in anticipation of losing another argument.

reply to post by dereks


I claim the Pentagon is the most heavily watched building in the world, as it's the epicenter of the United States Defense Department. The number of security cameras at the Pentagon, as far as I know, is not public knowledge. But we do know how many tapes they have.

There are at least 84 tapes. 13 showed the Pentagon Crash site. These are tapes that we know of. There have been multiple lawsuits attempting to get these tapes released. Why haven't they been? I think everyone should try to answer that question. Don't you?

That's the situation every step of the way. WTC 1, 2, and 7. Pentagon. Flight 93. Norad Stand-downs. It goes on and on.

www.flight77.info...
www.911research.wtc7.net...
www.infowars.net...

Don't kill the messenger.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by dereks


The Empire State building.

"Also, it's not on me to defend the paper. It's on you to review it critically."

Your expectations are way too high bro. You have to keep in mind that you're dealing with robotic drones whose intellect can only comprehend the following simplistic equation:

Plane Crash + Fire = Building Collapse

This is all their undeveloped minds are capable of grasping...nothing else...nada! Throwing other real life variables into the equation (such as physics) only complicates matters for them. If you do that, they are programmed to instantly switch into "Does Not Compute" mode.

You'll recognize this when you see them repeating the same rubbish over and over and over again. It must have something to do with their wiring and their electrical brain impulses going into an infinite loop.

reply to post by pteridine


Post it here then, cause I couldn't find it. At least nothing that needed any sort of refutation.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


They are either scared or have conflicting interests.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


No chain of custody or authenticity of the samples. DSC in air that does not discriminate between thermitic reaction and combustion. Energetics of "highly engineered" material varying by a factor of 4 and inconsistent with the claimed composition. Misrepresentation of the EDAX analysis. Poor selection of solvent for dissolution of cured paint. Improper and undocumented comparison of paint characteristcs. Use of conductivity to make improper conclusions.
Many of my comments will be found on the "Yep, it's thermite.." thread.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


You are also welcome to be part of the discussion. The thread should not be deprived of your insights.

reply to post by hooper


Here is some more tomfoolery, strange occurrences, slight of hand, coverup:

Core Denial

Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft[s]:

"For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. 1

WTC 1 and 2 were specifically designed for aircraft collisions.

911research.wtc7.net...

It really is mind-blowing.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Because they were designed to do something does not mean that they did what they were designed to do. Cars are specifically designed to protect the inhabitants in a crash.

Originally posted by pteridine
Because they were designed to do something does not mean that they did what they were designed to do.

It doesn't mean they failed to do what they were designed to do either.

All you think of are the planes and fires you saw. You know there were tons of credible witnesses and even the FBI saying they thought secondary bombs had went off in the basements, on the parking garage, but you completely discount that as any kind of evidence for some reason. Even though it was just as equally on TV on 9/11 when it all happened. And that's where all this testimony and footage even comes from.

Originally posted by bsbray11

It doesn't mean they failed to do what they were designed to do either.

You know there were tons of credible witnesses and even the FBI saying they thought secondary bombs had went off in the basements, on the parking garage, but you completely discount that as any kind of evidence for some reason. Even though it was just as equally on TV on 9/11 when it all happened. And that's where all this testimony and footage even comes from.

Actually, they did not fail immediately. Only after they were further weakened by fire did they collapse. The design did not allow for the disruption of the fireproofing and hydrant water, nor did it allow for a collision at the speeds of 911. Uncontrolled fire was not part of the design consideration.
The testimony was on TV, not the explosions. Many people thought many things and testified to what they heard and saw. When we look for confirmation of such testimony, there is none to be found. No residue, no unexploded charges, no visible explosions on video, just noises whose origins are unknown.
The only things that are certain are collisions and fires. All else is speculation.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

 

I have reviewed it critically and condemned it as bad science. If you disagree, explain why it is good science. You may get help if you need it or you may just ignore the challenge in anticipation of losing another argument.

Um... uh...you do realize that your argument here is about as empty and ridiculous as one can get, right? You cannot just condemn it and ask others to prove you wrong. You need to prove why you are right. You are the one making the claim. You claim it is wrong. Prove it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.

The difference between you an me is that I am not arrogant enough to claim to know anything let alone the real true story 100%. You have obviously chosen a different path because you have told me I am wrong. You cannot know I am wrong unless you know something, right? I am so sorry I have had to explain this to you, twice. Let me know if you are still confused and perhaps I can post some crayon drawings.

You claim to know I am wrong so you claim to know some truth.

I have not done that.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I don't know you're wrong. I haven't said that either - you're quite the one for putting words into people's mouths aren't you?

I'm happy beyond a reasonable doubt that you're wrong, yes. Do I have a complete idea of exactly what happened and who was behind it? Obviously not.

And to suggest that I do because I think you're spouting nonsense is completely illogical. It's wholly possible to think someone is wrong about something but not know therefore know "100 per cent" what is right. You might, for example, know that Oslo is NOT the capital of Sweden, but not know which city actually is.

The reason you've got yourself into this logical bind is because you've been pushed into the default truther position (the only one tenable) of thinking that there is an "OS" which you can hack away at without ever having to come up with any competing theories of your own.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The reason you've got yourself into this logical bind is because you've been pushed into the default truther position (the only one tenable) of thinking that there is an "OS" which you can hack away at without ever having to come up with any competing theories of your own.

Please tell me what you would call the story told to me by government officials if not "Official Story." We can call it whatever you like but I have asked this before and never got an answer.

You began the fallacy by magically assuming I need a competing theory of my own to know the OS is wrong.