PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You seem to be saying that there is evidence that wasn't discovered because no one looked for it, and therefore I can't say that there is no evidence. My counter is that as of right now, there is no evidence.

Right, like I said you are making a claim you cannot back up. You were on the right track when you said no evidence "found." To claim that there simply is none, you have to know it was looked for and found to not exist. You do not know that.

You can claim that there should be evidence, there might be evidence, no one looked for evidence, but you can't claim that there is evidence until it is found.
Until there is some evidence, there is no evidence.

You are quite delusional aren't you? You can no more say there is no evidence. Just because it has not been found does not mean it is not there. Because it was not looked for, it would not have been found.

Why is reality and logic such an uphill battle around here?


What other question?

[edit on 3/10/2010 by pteridine]

not claiming there is evidence, but there are claims of suspicious packages, suitcases and vehicles in, around and nearby.
as well as all the mystery explosions going off throughout the buildings.
would these not be evidence enough for a look.

edit. guess to add, claims were looked at and believe that explosions were put down to fuel from planes.
so yes they were looking, but no evidence found.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by redgy]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Right, like I said you are making a claim you cannot back up. You were on the right track when you said no evidence "found." To claim that there simply is none, you have to know it was looked for and found to not exist. You do not know that.

You can claim that there should be evidence, there might be evidence, no one looked for evidence, but you can't claim that there is evidence until it is found.
Until there is some evidence, there is no evidence.

You are quite delusional aren't you? You can no more say there is no evidence. Just because it has not been found does not mean it is not there. Because it was not looked for, it would not have been found.

Why is reality and logic such an uphill battle around here?

Consider a case in court. The judge asks "is there evidence, Gunderson?"
Gunderson says "There is evidence but it hasn't been found yet." The Judge says, " So you have no evidence?" Gunderson says, "You can't say that because you don't know if there is undiscovered evidence out there that no one looked for."
The Judge says, "Why is reality and logic such an uphill battle around here?" and orders that Gunderson be held for observation.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Is it therefore fair for you to say there's no evidence for my space frog theory? Given that no one has looked for it?

Or is your "no evidence" privileged over my "no evidence" just because you really, really want it to be true?

reply to post by pteridine


They did reach 2800 degrees, this has been made clear.

What in the heavens are you talking about?

I guess I just assumed you could read...

So... we're just going to ignore the fact that buildings 3 thru 6 had much more extensive damage than 7 took on from falling debris & fires, yet all were standing at the end of the day?

Okay, just checking.

reply to post by pteridine


The shoe fits on the other foot too you know.

I ask for your evidence that supports the opinion that the towers came down due to fire and impact damages alone. You know, the PROOF of this idea.

You have none to present, yet you put on like you're 100% sure of yourself anyway, you know, because you are a common adolescent troll.

Oh but there is proof, you just can't post it and haven't posted it yet, right?

While I'm still waiting for anyone to post the proof that it was fire and impact damages alone (it's been how many years so far? I'm not counting on seeing any), remember that all most of us are asking for is continued investigation, release of more information than has been released so far, more independent scientific analyses of debris and original technical structural documentation (not architectural "blueprints"), subpoena power, etc.

You have no evidence, we have little physical evidence. A LOT of circumstantial evidence that includes many events that are still completely unexplained to this day but leave plenty of room for bombs or explosives to have been there in abundance, just from witness testimonies alone.

It's pathetic that you guys devote yourself to a lost cause, "debunking," when we are mostly just asking questions that you have absolutely no way of definitively answering to begin with. You can only guess and pull unsupported excuses out of your ass until someone actually looks into this stuff more professionally.

The only evidence some people need to believe in fairy tales is a politician or a media member talking out of his/her rear end.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

The shoe fits on the other foot too you know.

I ask for your evidence that supports the opinion that the towers came down due to fire and impact damages alone. You know, the PROOF of this idea.

You have none to present, yet you put on like you're 100% sure of yourself anyway, you know, because you are a common adolescent troll.

Oh but there is proof, you just can't post it and haven't posted it yet, right?

pteridine is saving his proof for the courtroom.

A good internet criminal Defense Attorney NEVER tips his hand too early.

Here in this shot of WTC7, taken by the NYPD from the air and released to us by that wonderful NIST team of pseudo-scientists, you can see the heavy structural steel columns from WTC1 smoking on the ends where they were cut by thermite or explosives. If they demo'd the Towers, then they demo'd WTC7, and vice versa.

NIST NYPD gjs-wtc030.jpg

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2525be89b475.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

They did reach 2800 degrees, this has been made clear.

What in the heavens are you talking about?

I guess I just assumed you could read...

Although the key experiment to show thermite has not been done, I will respond to the 2800F red herring that you and many others use to try to distract from the lack of any proof of thermite.
Since you think you can read, refer to where the paper "makes clear" the 2800F temperature.
Good luck.

reply to post by pteridine


So you don't think it's hypocritical that you can't produce evidence to support your own opinions either?

reply to post by bsbray11

1. We have evidence for impacts and fire in the collapse of the WTC.
2. We have no evidence for any other cause. There is suspicion and speculation but no evidence.
3. Until there is additional evidence, our conclusion must be that the cause was impact and fire.
4. As much as you and others would like additional causes, there is still no evidence for them. Keep looking.

reply to post by pteridine


But you don't have evidence that the fires and planes alone led to the collapses.


We know the planes and fires happened, we know there were explosions there all day too. But can you prove the explosions had nothing to do with the collapses too? No. Can you prove the fires and impacts were all that was needed? Again, no, you can't. There is no evidence either way. Go ahead and say we have no evidence. You don't either.

You're a hypocrite.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by SPreston

Obviously only demolition explosives could remove the 8 floors, and if NIST is correct, then somebody rigged each of those 8 floors for demolition, shearing each of the 81 columns on each of the 8 floors. That equals 648 charges of whatever type rigged for demolition, and ensuring 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Finally. EUREKA!! We have a number. 648 Charges of whatever type!!
So, SPreston...Could I assume that we should be able to hear 648 explosions of whatever type going off just before collapse??
You do know there are videos with sound in them of these moments don´t you??

However, they DON´T HAVE the sound of those 648 charges going BOOM.
I wonder...

Well 648 thermite cutting charges would be very quiet, and as ANOK pointed out repeatedly, some explosives have a very low sound level.

Now if it was Usama bin Laden's boys hanging 648 of the Al CIAda IED bombs on the 8 floors of columns, then there should have been some really big booms.

But if it was US Military or Israeli demolition team insiders, using their top secret and highly sophisticated military explosives on the 648 columns, then maybe there would be little or no sound. Of course many people and firemen did report explosion sounds in WTC7. Maybe some of the charges got accidentally set off early, wrecking the stairway Barry Jennings was climbing down.

Regardless, since there was 2.25 seconds of freefall for WTC7 according to NIST, and since NIST equates that to 8 stories, something removed the WTC7 8 floors for the 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Do you have an alternate method for removing the 8 floors for the 2.25 seconds of WTC7 freefall?

Perhaps an Al CIAda wizard waving his wand and chanting a spell?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by bsbray11


To claim that there were other causes, one must have what? Evidence, BS, evidence. What do you have, BS? Faulty logic and a penchant for name calling.
It is fortunate that your education never required you to know how science is done or you would still be waiting to graduate. Someday, someone may evidence that will change our present conclusion. Until then, the only causes we have to select from are impacts and fires.

Originally posted by pteridine
To claim that there were other causes, one must have what? Evidence

To claim there was ANY cause to begin with one must have what? Evidence.

Do you have evidence it was just planes and fires? No. So you can't say "other causes," because it's not like you've automatically established the cause already. That requires evidence remember?

So can you say, "welp, that's all we saw, that must have been it"? No, you can't, unless you are a scientific ignorant (then you can say it all you want, like you have been). We heard explosions too. By your idiotic logic, they "must" have done it too, because there were tons of them reported by scores of witnesses. That makes just as much sense, which is to say, none at all, because we don't actually know.

It is fortunate that your education never required you to know how science is done

Says the high schooler to the engineering major who has already had to do more technical writing than you ever have in your life. Yes, what a pity.

I know you are really not so ignorant that you can think you can make stuff up and pretend it's evidence when there is a total vacuum of evidence. You really are NOT that stupid. You are trolling.

Your whole reason for posting here is transparent as hell.You don't ask questions about 9/11, you don't try to answer others' questions with any evidence, you just come here to pick at people and make yourself feel better about yourself. And what is that called? Trolling.

And again, do you have evidence to show what brought down the towers? No, you don't. Evidence that it was just planes and fires? No. Evidence it COULD have been done as seen by planes and fires? No. Any evidence at all? No. Hyp-o-crite.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Please describe the causes for the towers collapse. Now describe the causes you have evidence for.

Originally posted by pteridine
Please describe the causes for the towers collapse. Now describe the causes you have evidence for.

You're confused.

I never said I knew what caused them to collapse.

I said we still don't know, and it deserves a lot more attention on many different levels of investigation.

Originally posted by SPreston
or Israeli demolition team insiders,

Ah, the old "It was all the Jews fault", no matter what happens there is always someone ready to blame the Jews. They must have so much hatred for jews inside themselves.

Funny how no one working there noticed the tonnes of super secret silent explosives being installed - perhaps they were really super secret silent INVISIBLE explosives - who know what those jews can get up to!