PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by Jezus

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
I asked you to prove that the NIST theory is impossible. You cannot do it.

The NIST theory does not prove itself to be possible.

The issue is that no evidence suggests a perfect collapse is possible under the observed conditions.

An alternative theory is unnecessary speculation.

Explosives are just a possible explanation for what is otherwise a phenomenon.

So if explosives is the alternative theory, then what is the leading theory?

fire?

Originally posted by Jezus

The NIST theory does not prove itself to be possible.

The issue is that no evidence suggests a perfect collapse is possible under the observed conditions.

An alternative theory is unnecessary speculation.

Explosives are just a possible explanation for what is otherwise a phenomenon.

How does the NIST theory prove anythng about itself? It is definitely possible and, in my opinion, most probable.
How do you define a "perfect collapse" and why would one not be possible under the observed conditions?

I would like to post that the video certainly doesn't prove anything and the misleading title should be removed.

You have posted a very poor quality you tube video that clearly shows windows breaking after the collapse has already started.

Better luck next time.

reply to post by pteridine


No proof of any of their theories. Just a bunch of speculation. If truthers would just stick to asking tough questions rather than trying to create alternative solutions without any proof they would be better off.

reply to post by macaronicaesar


Everybody keeps saying.. Truthers stop with the alternative theories...

Whats the official theory? the leading theory?

anybody?

We are going to leave other Members alone except to answer their posts, and On Topic preferably.

Thank you

Semper

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by pteridine


No proof of any of their theories. Just a bunch of speculation. If truthers would just stick to asking tough questions rather than trying to create alternative solutions without any proof they would be better off.

Hmmmmm.......

Let me see.

How do we dance around this...

It seems unfair to pick on "their" theories especially when the only reason that anyone presented one is because someone demanded over and over again that "they" do.

I just want to point out that throughout this thread, there is a demand from the OS side for "truthers" to supply some working theory for some reason. After much hesitation one was finally offered and it is mocked in such a fashion?

I suggest people read the entire thread all the way through and take note of the context of such things before coming to judgment.

Originally posted by pteridine
People aren't ignoring the witnesses. People are taking the testimony in context. When some one says they heard "an explosion" or something sounded like "an explosion" that does not mean that it was necessarily an explosion.

Actually that IS direct, legal evidence of an explosion. The source can be disputed but there are scores of people and even video recordings of multiple explosions there on 9/11.

dereks said they must have been "hush-a-boom" or whatever the cute word for testimonial ignorance is today.

Since there WERE explosions, you would have to ignore evidence and make yourself literally ignorant to claim there were no sounds of explosions that day to correlate to explosives/bombs hypothetically being there. There were explosions.

Now that you have stated your position as believing that the collapse of WTC#7 was due to CD, you should postulate possible scenarios.

You were just complaining above that we shouldn't make up theories, we should just stick to asking questions. But here you are baiting me to do just what you would later claim none of us should do. You are trolling.

I say WTC7 was a demolition based on the impossibility of crushing itself using its own weight while simultaneously retaining all of its kinetic energy as it falls, and falling at the rate of gravity. That is the end of that theory, which is not even a theory, but a physics observation that anyone who understands conservation of energy can make and probably already has made if they have even seen this building fall at all. Beyond that I am saying NOTHING specific. Why are you trying to bait me to make things up off the top of my head arbitrarily when you were just complaining about that above? Because.... you are baiting? Because.... you are trolling?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by pteridine


No proof of any of their theories. Just a bunch of speculation. If truthers would just stick to asking tough questions rather than trying to create alternative solutions without any proof they would be better off.

Hmmmmm.......

Let me see.

How do we dance around this...

It seems unfair to pick on "their" theories especially when the only reason that anyone presented one is because someone demanded over and over again that "they" do.

I just want to point out that throughout this thread, there is a demand from the OS side for "truthers" to supply some working theory for some reason. After much hesitation one was finally offered and it is mocked in such a fashion?

I suggest people read the entire thread all the way through and take note of the context of such things before coming to judgment.

Listen the word "proof" is used a little too loosely. All the video proves is that the building collapsed.

You have one truther in here suggesting that a demolition team went in and did what they had to do while the building was on fire. Absolutely ridiculous.

The more these people speak out and come up with these outlandish scenarios the more they hurt everyone involved trying to seek the truth.

I agree some things weren't properly investigated, but I think it's likely to hide the governments incompetence more than any direct involvement.

Originally posted by pteridine
It is definitely possible and, in my opinion, most probable.

It might "seem" plausible in your opinion but there is no scientific reason to believe that any of those towers would collapse in that manner from just the damage and fires.

Originally posted by pteridine
why would one not be possible under the observed conditions?

The issue is that there is just no reason to believe it IS possible.

It just doesn't happen. So why did it happen 3 times in one day?

I don’t know but nothing from the "official story" explains the phenomenon...

reply to post by macaronicaesar

I agree some things weren't properly investigated, but I think it's likely to hide the governments incompetence more than any direct involvement.

We are all entitle to our opinions but video observation with proven sciences and credible eyewitness accounts has shown us that some kind of demolition was the only possible demise of the WTC. Millions of people including me, know that the governments incompetence could not have pulverized over millions of tons of concret into a fine power at the WTC.

The NIST report has been proven a fraud by A&E. If you do not believe me go to their website.
www.ae911truth.org...

Read how A&E has confronted NIST about their fraudulent report A&E has shown NIST where their sciences is made up (junk sciences) and does not stand up to real sciences and real mathematics.

Let us set our opinions aside for a minute to what we think and let us debate the issue. If A&E is wrong then please demonstrate were A&E is wrong by using credible sciences.
Because, A&E has a solid convincing case against NIST.








[edit on 14-3-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by Jezus

The issue is that there is just no reason to believe it IS possible.

It just doesn't happen. So why did it happen 3 times in one day?

I don’t know but nothing from the "official story" explains the phenomenon...

You might also say that airliners loaded with fuel crashing into buildings just doesn't happen, so why did that happen twice in one day? People have a tough time accepting aluminum airliners cutting through steel columns because it just doesn't seem like it should happen, based on ther everyday experiences. Soft copper can be pushed through 6" of armor plate, which also seems like it shouldn't happen.
"It just doesn't happen" can be translated to mean, "In my experience, I have never seen anything like this and can't imagine how it could happen."

reply to post by pteridine


So you’re saying that other steel buildings have imploded in on themselves like this?

reply to post by bsbray11


As to the explosions, the issue is CD. CD is not done with widely spaced explosions, as control would be lost.
With resect to what I said, I did not say that you should not postulate theories. Another poster said that there were too many theories and suggested that people stick to asking questions. My problem with many of the extant theories is that they are not testable. They are vague and amorphous and we go from thermite to explosives and back again in the same thread.
Testable means that we propose a detailed scenario and see if it fits the evidence at hand. Doing this will allow elimination of theories as progress is made so that we do not have to go over the same ground, forever.

Originally posted by pteridine
As to the explosions, the issue is CD. CD is not done with widely spaced explosions, as control would be lost.

There were explosions before WTC7 came down, there was an explosion as it came down as testified by NYPD Craig Bartmer who was there. From the other "logic" you've demonstrated here, and your educational history, I wouldn't trust you to give any advice or counsel on how demolitions can be successfully accomplished anyway. It's something for an investigation done by more competent individuals to consider.

My problem with many of the extant theories is that they are not testable.

Why don't you care that NIST's hypotheses were never tested or otherwise verified? If you're going to say they WERE verified then post here how and where. A hypocrite is not a logical thinker.

Originally posted by countercounterculture
reply to post by Jezus

 

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
I asked you to prove that the NIST theory is impossible. You cannot do it.

The NIST theory does not prove itself to be possible.

The issue is that no evidence suggests a perfect collapse is possible under the observed conditions.

An alternative theory is unnecessary speculation.

Explosives are just a possible explanation for what is otherwise a phenomenon.

So if explosives is the alternative theory, then what is the leading theory?

fire?

Haven't you been keeping up?

The leading theory for the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY / NIST explanation for a WTC7 collapse into 2.25 seconds of freefall is a phenomenon.

The NIST pseudo-scientists refuse to explore it any further.

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

[edit on 3/14/10 by SPreston]

Now thats a FIEaaah!

This Mandarin Oriental skyscraper burned for for a very long time and was totally consumed by fire and yet no collapse.

after ( the kink in the side is part of the design )

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

NOTICE: MODERATOR ADVISORY

This is a reminder that courtesy is mandatory and steps are being taken to eliminate rude, disruptive behavior from our forums.

Members are advised to avoid such behavior and thereby avoid consequences that may include temporary suspension of posting privileges or permanent account termination.

Please stay on topic and avoid ANY commentary whatsoever, whether considered "insulting" or not, regarding the person or characteristics of any member. ANY such commentary is off topic and subject to warning and removal, so please, don't.

Direct responses to this advisory in this thread will be considered off topic and will be subject to warning and removal. Comments are welcome here:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

It is strongly recommended that members acquaint themselves with the forum rules before posting, because ignorance of them will not stand as an excuse for misconduct.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY. STAY ON TOPIC.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Two problems. That building is not the same design and neither did it sustain damage in addition to the fire. All buildings are most definantly not created equal.