PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by bsbray11

You are avoiding the question. I didn't ask you what you think caused them to collapse, I asked you what you had evidence for.
Are you uncomfortable answering? Do you need my help to tell you what you have evidence for?

Originally posted by pteridine
You are avoiding the question. I didn't ask you what you think caused them to collapse, I asked you what you had evidence for.

I didn't avoid answering it. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted to read. You're still very confused.

I don't have proof for any given mode of destruction. There is none, for ANYTHING, including saying it was the planes and fires alone and nothing else. All of these specific explanations are lacking evidence.

That's why I tell you, you will NEVER have sufficient evidence/proof of what actually brought these buildings down until a much more powerful investigation is carried out with subpoena power, further scientific analysis of debris to answer several unanswered questions, all those kinds of things.

Are you uncomfortable answering? Do you need my help to tell you what you have evidence for?

You are the one uncomfortable with the fact that you have no evidence to support your own opinions, because you don't even like to admit it.

You have no evidence that it was planes and fires alone.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have no evidence that it was planes and fires alone.

What you are saying is that there is evidence for planes, fire, and secondary impacts on building 7. We are certain of those events.
What else do we have? Until we have something else, what can you conclude, BS?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have no evidence that it was planes and fires alone.

What you are saying is that there is evidence for planes, fire, and secondary impacts on building 7. We are certain of those events.

Did those things happen? Yes, there is plenty of evidence for THAT, of course, no disagreement. There is also plenty of evidence that many explosions were occurring inside the buildings.

Did those things alone bring down all 3 buildings? Now there is no evidence of that.


I'll have to explain it to you again, won't I?

Originally posted by bsbray11


Did those things happen? Yes, there is plenty of evidence for THAT, of course, no disagreement.

There is also plenty of evidence that many explosions were occurring inside the buildings.

Did those things alone bring down all 3 buildings? Now there is no evidence of that.

There is no evidence of anything else, is there? There is speculation and your wishful thinking, but no evidence. Not all noises are explosions. Not all explosions are demolitions. The explosions have not been shown to be causal.
Use your logic and the evidence and conclude what caused the collapse.

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of anything else, is there?

You keep saying "anything else." There is no evidence for ANYTHING! Period!



If you think just because something happened inside the towers, then that's automatically the cause of the collapses, then the explosions were too. You can't pick and choose which things contributed and which didn't based on whatever you feel like pulling out of your ass and what you feel like leaving up there. You have NO EVIDENCE it was fires and planes alone, OR anything else!!


If I said 1 + 1 = 2 you would convince yourself it's actually 3 just to keep arguing wouldn't you? Is this what you do instead of playing sports or something? You think if you're clever enough you can refute logic?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Yes. I can say that it was planes and fires. I have no evidence for anything else. When I do, I will revaluate the evidence and conclude based on the evidence.

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes. I can say that it was planes and fires. I have no evidence for anything else.

You have no evidence it was only planes and fires, either.

You know when you post the same thing over and over and I give you the same response over and over yet you can't refute me, only keep repeating yourself, it really makes me sorry for you more than anything man. I am glad that I am not you.

So this conversation between me and pteridine has gone like this:


bsbray: There is no evidence that planes and fires alone brought down the towers; there is no evidence that ANYTHING specifically brought them down.

pteridine: There isn't evidence of anything else than planes and fires.

bsbray: There's no evidence of planes and fires alone doing it to begin with.

pteridine: There isn't evidence of anything else than planes and fires.

bsbray: There's no evidence of planes and fires alone doing it to begin with.

pteridine: There isn't evidence of anything else than planes and fires.

bsbray: There's no evidence of planes and fires alone doing it to begin with.

pteridine: There isn't evidence of anything else than planes and fires.



Are we seeing a pattern yet?

Read the posts yourselves and see if this is not exactly how this is going.


I repeat: there is NO EVIDENCE that planes and fires alone could have or did bring the towers down. NONE. So criticizing anyone else for having as much as evidence as YOU do is hypocritical, beyond stupid.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Yes. I can say that it was planes and fires. I have no evidence for anything else.

You have no evidence it was only planes and fires, either.

You know when you post the same thing over and over and I give you the same response over and over yet you can't refute me, only keep repeating yourself, it really makes me sorry for you more than anything man. I am glad that I am not you.

Until I do, that is the only thing I can conclude. When you have more experience with technical things, you will discover that I am correct.

And you can't refute me. You will learn more about your errors should you ever try to publish a peer reviewed technical paper and use your version of logic.

Originally posted by pteridine
When you have more experience with technical things, you will discover that I am correct.

And what exactly makes you so sure of this? You sound like a Christian telling me I'll find out they were right when I die.

And you can't refute me.

What is there to refute? A logical fallacy? You prove YOURSELF wrong. I tell you that you have no evidence that planes and fires alone brought them down, and you just say there's no evidence that "anything else" did it either. As far as a burden a proof goes, that's such a stupid argument it doesn't even need to be refuted. There is nothing to refute.

You will learn more about your errors should you ever try to publish a peer reviewed technical paper and use your version of logic.

My version of logic that asks for positive evidence as opposed to yours which asks for ..... what do you base your opinions on again? Not evidence, so what is it?

Faith? Ignorance? High school hormones?


[edit on 10-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I repeat: there is NO EVIDENCE that planes and fires alone could have or did bring the towers down.

You are wrong again actually. There is physical evidence that planes and fires alone bought down the towers down. There is zero evidence anything else, including explosives or thermite was involved.

When you find physical anything else but the planes and fires were involved, how about posting it so others can also see it? Until then there is only evidence that the planes and fires were involved.

If you think it was something else why not post the evidence for that....

[edit on 10/3/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by dereks
There is physical evidence that planes and fires alone bought down the towers down.

Good, then you can post it.

I mean post what the actual positive evidence is, so don't start spamming me with links to debunking911.com if you really know what this proof is yourself.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I tell you that you have no evidence that planes and fires alone brought them down, and you just say there's no evidence that "anything else" did it either. As far as a burden a proof goes, that's such a stupid argument it doesn't even need to be refuted. There is nothing to refute.
My version of logic that asks for positive evidence as opposed to yours which asks for ..... what do you base your opinions on again? Not evidence, so what is it?

Did you ever hear of cause and effect. The effect was the collapse of the buildings. Something had to cause it. What do we know happened for sure? Let's review. There aren't too many choices, are there?
Your version of logic asks for positive evidence, does it? I have positive evidence that planes and subsequent secondary projectiles struck the buildings that collapsed. I have positive evidence that uncontrolled fires burned in the buildings that collapsed. There is no other positive evidence.

Where is the positive evidence that your version of logic asks for, BS?

Tell me again about opinions, evidence and "stupid arguments" that you seem have so much experience with.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

OH YES!! There´s a pattern alright!!

The pattern is that once or twice a week a new thread magicaly pups up, offering some new discovery of new PROOF or EVIDENCE of the eternal "inside job" on 9/11.

And this new proof or evidence turns out to be just speculation and opinion of somebody.
THAT´S THE PATTERN ALRIGHT!!

Originally posted by pteridine
Did you ever hear of cause and effect. The effect was the collapse of the buildings. Something had to cause it. What do we know happened for sure? Let's review. There aren't too many choices, are there?
Your version of logic asks for positive evidence, does it? I have positive evidence that planes and subsequent secondary projectiles struck the buildings that collapsed. I have positive evidence that uncontrolled fires burned in the buildings that collapsed. There is no other positive evidence.

Where is the positive evidence that your version of logic asks for, BS?

Tell me again about opinions, evidence and "stupid arguments" that you seem have so much experience with.

This is not logical.

Correlation is not causation.

Limited evidence does not prove itself to be the only factor.

If the available evidence is not a sufficient explanation, some other unknown variable must be a factor.

Even pretending we have absolutely no knowledge of other variables would not change the fact the available evidence is insufficient.

We can conclude that one theory is impossible without an alternative theory...

Originally posted by pteridine
I have positive evidence that uncontrolled fires burned in the buildings that collapsed.

I AGREE with that, Jesus CHRIST! How many times do I have to say this before it sticks in your head? A BILLION? If you're not even going to read my posts why should we respond to you at all? Are you that desperate for attention?

Originally posted by rush969
THAT´S THE PATTERN ALRIGHT!!

It's another really common pattern for you to take something and respond to it with something completely different because you have no legitimate response to what was originally posted, isn't it?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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?

"FOUND." Perhaps while OS supporters are in such a hurry to jump on top of each other to cover for one another, you should take some time to read the things you are defending. I am certainly no one to question what you think you are trying to say but I highly recommend you go back and read Pteridines posts. You will notice a critical word that he keeps using but you seem to not notice at all.

The word is "found" and it actually changes the entire shape of the conversation. There is a reason more and more people should probably just speak for themselves and this is it. Pteridine has lost his argument because he keeps forgetting what "found" means and you have now jumped in to proclaim that word does not even exist in the conversation.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have no evidence that it was planes and fires alone.

What you are saying is that there is evidence for planes, fire, and secondary impacts on building 7. We are certain of those events.
What else do we have? Until we have something else, what can you conclude, BS?

This is such a curious thing to say. We do indeed have evidence of planes and fire. Not sure what you are calling secondary impacts on the buildings, that sounds like explosions to me. You agree that there were secondary impacts? Caused by what in your book?

Anyway...what you keep asking for is evidence of what brought the buildings down. Why do you not see that you have no evidence for planes and fires bringing the buildings down?

Evidence of planes and fires only proves....


...planes and fires. It does nothing to probe the reason for complete, symmetrical collapse. You really do seem to be running in a small hypocritical circle here. You keep claiming you have evidence of planes and fires. Great! Good for you.

Now, can you provide us with any evidence that those planes and fires made those buildings come down? That would actually get you on the road to making a fair argument.