New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

meglome

ed2hands wrote: »

How Meglome can we test the controlled demolition theory when there was no test for explosives?

I take it you're going to avoid that one too but no probs.

Meglome i'm sorry but i don't swallow the NIST report because they didn't test for explosives. Simple.

They start an investigation, then strangely they investigate. How do they tell if a plane was brought down by a bomb? They get the pieces and look for damage that was caused by a bomb. The same exact way the NIST people investigated 911. Look at the pieces and see what caused the collapse.

You're fixated by the lack of one test. To even worry about that test there would need to be some evidence of damage caused by explosives but there is no damage from explosives.
Without the damage and other leftovers of explosives then a test would be utterly pointless as it would be impossible for there to be explosives in the first place. Is any of this sinking in?

ed2hands wrote: »

They didn't even do the test properly ie heat the concrete pads.

Right and I'm still waiting for you to explain why that is remotely important.

ed2hands wrote: »

Thomas the tank engine fans would have tested for explosives when shown the footage regardless of the fires of hell burning for eternity in any steel framed building.

I hate to be a broken record but not one piece of the wreckage had explosive damage on it. This is the most basic test and the theory fails right away. How do you think a test would prove anything when there is no damage from explosives in the first place?

ed2hands wrote: »

And you wonder why people like me are curious?

I don't think you're curious at all. We've gone into great detail about why the explosives theory is practically impossible. No damage from explosives = no explosives. I have repeatedly asked you even basic question and you don't answer. You just keep basically saying that an idiot can see it's a controlled demolition but can't answer a basic question about it. So are you curious? if you are then I suggest you tell us how you learned it happened from all the curiosity.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Your silly and unscientific argument of equating that NIST didn't test for explosives is somehow parallel to the fact they didn't test for space lasers shows just how ingrained you are in the debunking/skeptic mindset.

It speaks volumes about your disdain for alternative views and obvious disregard for following the very rules you supposedly subscribe to; which is to to evaluate each and every scenario without pre-supposed bias.

You say that, but can you explain why you don't think the space laser or nuclear bomb explanations are plausible and explain why the NIST should have looked for evidence of them?

I'm holding these explanations to the same standard as the explosives explanation and everything else.

You're the one who's disregarding his own rules.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

You say that, but can you explain why you don't think the space laser or nuclear bomb explanations are plausible and explain why the NIST should have looked for evidence of them?

I'm holding these explanations to the same standard as the explosives explanation and everything else.

You're the one who's disregarding his own rules.

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUM2VaHaqyE

LOL :pac:

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

Did you watch the video? There's no mention of explosives whatsoever. The guy asking the questions repeatedly asks loaded questions which Lee Hamilton (vice chairman of 911 commission) disagrees with. This video is shot between the first NIST report and the report they completely a number of years later on building 7 specifically.

The only thing that really happens in this video is a 'truther' being told he's wrong and ignoring it. Now that isn't news.

Di0genes

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

LOL :pac:

Firstly jesus the graphics how bombastic and pompous.

Hamiltion is clearly saving its not the definitive document, much in the same way that a book written a year or so after WW2 is not going to be the definitive account of the war....

The degree of misrepresentation in your statement is breathtaking.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Look here Mob. It's clearly explained why they didnt look for explosives or remains of them.

Convenient that you missed this on it's thread.

LOL :pac:

Yea and your explanation assumes your premise without evidence.
And if we are to follow your logic the government must have used space lasers and nuclear bombs as well since there's no other reason why they wouldn't have looking for evidence of those things.

So why do you think they didn't test for space lasers or nuclear bombs?

enno99

meglome wrote: »

Did you watch the video? There's no mention of explosives whatsoever. The guy asking the questions repeatedly asks loaded questions which Lee Hamilton (vice chairman of 911 commission) disagrees with. This video is shot between the first NIST report and the report they completely a number of years later on building 7 specifically.

The only thing that really happens in this video is a 'truther' being told he's wrong and ignoring it. Now that isn't news.

Luke Rudkowski and Dustin D attend the Bipartisan Policy Center's Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations press conference in Washington D.C. on August 31, 2011. Watch Luke ask Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about Philip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission outline, and if that influenced the omission of the Building 7 collapse from the 9/11 Commission's final report. More to come soon of course, stay tuned and subscribe to see Thomas Kean run away from Luke next week.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Did you watch the video? There's no mention of explosives whatsoever. The guy asking the questions repeatedly asks loaded questions which Lee Hamilton (vice chairman of 911 commission) disagrees with. This video is shot between the first NIST report and the report they completely a number of years later on building 7 specifically.

The only thing that really happens in this video is a 'truther' being told he's wrong and ignoring it. Now that isn't news.

what does the video prove that the guy asking the questions should have asked Lee to check for explosives?

and for all you silly people out there, this was meant to be a terrorist attack, checking for explosives would be an OBVIOUS requirement. I mean it is possible that osama bin laden told other radical recruits to drive vans of explosives or plant explosives in case the planes did not work ...

you can not explain why they did not check for explosives because it is elementary.

i'll skip the fact of who is actually on the 911 commission and how independent they were.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

and for all you silly people out there, this was meant to be a terrorist attack, checking for explosives would be an OBVIOUS requirement. I mean it is possible that osama bin laden told other radical recruits to drive vans of explosives or plant explosives in case the planes did not work ...

you can not explain why they did not check for explosives because it is elementary.

And they could have possibly used space lasers and nuclear weapons as well, yet no test for them

And yet you cannot explain why they didn't check...

meglome

enno99 wrote: »

Luke Rudkowski and Dustin D attend the Bipartisan Policy Center's Tenth Anniversary Report Card: The Status of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations press conference in Washington D.C. on August 31, 2011. Watch Luke ask Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about Philip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission outline, and if that influenced the omission of the Building 7 collapse from the 9/11 Commission's final report.

My mistake... of course it doesn't change the fact he disagree with everything the guy asks.

enno99 wrote: »

More to come soon of course, stay tuned and subscribe to see Thomas Kean run away from Luke next week.

I'm not remotely surprised if anyone runs away. He comes up and basically starts telling people what happened, even though he wasn't there. These people were there so they know exactly what happened, why the hell should they stand there and listen to a guy talking out of his arse. I love it... running away=conspiracy when it's much more likely running away=tired of loons.

davoxx wrote: »

what does the video prove that the guy asking the questions should have asked Lee to check for explosives?

and for all you silly people out there, this was meant to be a terrorist attack, checking for explosives would be an OBVIOUS requirement. I mean it is possible that osama bin laden told other radical recruits to drive vans of explosives or plant explosives in case the planes did not work ...

you can not explain why they did not check for explosives because it is elementary.

i'll skip the fact of who is actually on the 911 commission and how independent they were.

As I said the video proves nothing other than 'truthers' ignore being told they are wrong.

What exactly does "checking for explosives" entail. Let's see... examining the wreckage for suspicious damage, for leftover detcord or other remains, checking all available audio sources for sounds of explosives etc. If they find any of these then it would make sense to test for explosive residue, to see what type of explosive was used. But why on gods green earth would you do a test for anything when you already know as a fact it wasn't there. It's a stunningly simple principal, no damage from explosives = no explosives. Sorry but a child could get this.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Yet you can't deal with people asking them of you.

Do you think space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations, Yes or no?
Do you think that the NIST should have tested for them, yes or no?

So either answer the questions or explain why you aren't answering them.

King Mob wrote: »

You say that, but can you explain why you don't think the space laseror nuclear bomb explanations are plausible and explain why the NIST should have looked for evidence of them?

I'm holding these explanations to the same standard as the explosives explanation and everything else.

You're the one who's disregarding his own rules.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea and your explanation assumes your premise without evidence.
And if we are to follow your logic the government must have used space lasers and nuclear bombs as well since there's no other reason why they wouldn't have looking for evidence of those things.

So why do you think they didn't test for space lasers or nuclear bombs?

King Mob wrote: »

And they could have possibly used space lasers and nuclear weapons as well, yet no test for them

And yet you cannot explain why they didn't check...

You get paid for this ?

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You get paid for this ?

See for anyone following the logic...
There is no evidence for space lasers but I say it's space lasers so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.
There is no evidence for aliens but I say it's aliens so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.
There is no evidence for a nuclear blast but I say it's a nuclear blast so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.
There is no evidence for explosives but I say it's explosives so they must test and if they don't it's suspicious.

You following?

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

You get paid for this ?

I wish.

But can you explain what about the space laser theory is so ridiculous and why it shouldn't be tested for?

I can point to people who genuinely believe that the Towers were destroyed by space based energy weapons. (And interestingly do not believe explosives or thermite could have possibly been used.)

So why exactly should they not test for space lasers?

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

I wish.

But can you explain what about the space laser theory is so ridiculous and why it shouldn't be tested for?

I can point to people who genuinely believe that the Towers were destroyed by space based energy weapons. (And interestingly do not believe explosives or thermite could have possibly been used.)

So why exactly should they not test for space lasers?

I actually kinda feel sorry for you.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I actually kinda feel sorry for you.

Hey, I'm not the one who's dodging questions that might force me to think.

If you'd like to grow up and engage in a discussion that might get you to start examining what you believe, the points are still there for you to try and address.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Hey, I'm not the one who's dodging questions that might force me to think.

If you'd like to grow up and engage in a discussion that might get you to start examining what you believe, the points are still there for you to try and address.

Why did a bomb go off in or close to the lobby ?

or should we focus on space lasers ?

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Why did a bomb go off in or close to the lobby ?

Why do you think a bomb went off in the lobby?

Any videos or pictures of this?
Can you explain how or why this would fit into an explosive collapse?

Daithi 1 wrote: »

or should we focus on space lasers ?

I'm not asking you to focus on them, I'm just asking you to answer one simple question.
Why can't you answer it?

meglome

Let me help you out there Daithi1

meglome wrote: »

Here's another one for you. I originally posted this info on a previous thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM

The fire-fighters says 'all the windows were blown out', often quoted to prove there were explosives. But that's not what the footage shows.

So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. A lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building too. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.

But you know I discovered something in the meantime completely by accident. I was looking at the Naudet bothers documentary the one which was narrated by Robert De Niro. In part two (two or three anyway, go check and you'll see it) there's some shots of the firemen arriving at the WTC. In the shot they appear to be breaking the windows with their axes to get access the lobby in numbers. So using the evidence I can surmise that these huge plate glass windows were broken by the plane impact and/or the fire-fighters gaining access.

So I could easily check that the damage in the lobby was not caused by explosives but 'Architects for 911 truth' couldn't. Bunch of liars.

Daithi 1

meglome wrote: »

Where's the evidence that a bomb went off in or near the lobby?

BTW people really do think it was space lasers.

Multiple witnesses stated it. The ground shook, lots of dead folk in the lobby, stuff like that, bomb stuff like, explosions like, like when bombs go off !

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Multiple witnesses stated it. The ground shook, lots of dead folk in the lobby, stuff like that, bomb stuff like, explosions like, like when bombs go off !

Which witnesses?
Who said the ground shook and when did it?
Which lobby had dead folk in it?

You keep stating stuff like this but you can't honestly expect people to just take your word for it.

And "sounds like an explosion" does equate to explosives.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And they could have possibly used space lasers and nuclear weapons as well, yet no test for them

And yet you cannot explain why they didn't check...

so they failed to test for that as well??
how can you defend their incompetence??
did not check for space lasers which are used in terrorist attacks ....

you do have proof that terrorists use space laser right?
of course you do, so please post it here.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And "sounds like an explosion" does equate to explosives.

that is true, but that is why you check for it, so that you can rule it out.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you think a bomb went off in the lobby?

Any videos or pictures of this?
Can you explain how or why this would fit into an explosive collapse?

I'm not asking you to focus on them, I'm just asking you to answer one simple question.
Why can't you answer it?

asking questions while dodging ones asked of you? seems like a fair way to deny evidence ...

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

so they failed to test for that as well??
how can you defend their incompetence??
did not check for space lasers which are used in terrorist attacks ....

you do have proof that terrorists use space laser right?
of course you do, so please post it here.

Please point to were terrorists have ever used planes as missiles against skyscrapers before?
Or were terrorist were able to sneak tons of explosives into a skyscraper to demolish it entirely?

So we can see that something simply not happening before doesn't rule it out.

And if it did, you'd still have to apply that to the theory you like, meaning that the NIST didn't have to check for explosives.

So is that the only reason you don't believe in the space laser theory and why it shouldn't have been tested for?

Sonofcicero

How I hate the conspiracy theorists! no sympathy, no understanding, driven only by a hatred of the USA. God Bless America (with all its faults and failings it's still a real democracy).

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

that is true, but that is why you check for it, so that you can rule it out.

So then since lots of the twin towers were pulverised we'd have to check for space lasers and nuclear bombs as well, since they are the only things that could have done that?

davoxx wrote: »

asking questions while dodging ones asked of you? seems like a fair way to deny evidence ...

Please point out the questions I've dodged on this thread that weren't stupid or immature and I'll answer them now.

But just to point it out, you are again resorting to the "well so are you" tactic of debate.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Please point to were terrorists have ever used planes as missiles against skyscrapers before?

EXACTLY is wasn't terrorists .. the penny drops ...

but seriously lasers and unicorns, laser mounted on unicorns ... you still can't answer why they did not check for explosives, other than incompetence.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

EXACTLY is wasn't terrorists .. the penny drops ...

That's not the point I was making. You ignored it entirely because you can't address it.

By your own logic you have to either conclude that your excuse for them not testing for lasers or nuke is invalid or that by applying the same excuse you'd have to agree that there was no reason for them to do the test.

davoxx wrote: »

but seriously lasers and unicorns, laser mounted on unicorns ... you still can't answer why they did not check for explosives, other than incompetence.

I have answered that question several times.
And it's in fact the answer to the question I keep asking.

They didn't test for explosives/space lasers/nukes because there's no evidence to suggest they played a role and those explanations are full of holes and patently silly.

davoxx

Sonofcicero wrote: »

How I hate the conspiracy theorists! no sympathy, no understanding, driven only by a hatred of the USA. God Bless America (with all its faults and failings it's still a real democracy).

hello there mister new user less than ten post spreading his hate.

this forum is not for spreading hate.

but even if you hate me, i still like you ....

because i like gullible people like you, with my sympathy i understand that you are driven by hate of those who are not from the usa. God/Buddha/Allah/Krishna/FSM bless NON America (with non of american faults and failings, it still the only democracy to start an illegal war (and lie about it), assassinate a person in a different county, without informing the sovereign nation).

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out the questions I've dodged on this thread that weren't stupid or immature and I'll answer them now.

i have to point them out again? and now you feel like answering them, though only if you feel they aren't stupid (like checking for explosives when doing an enquiry into 911) or immature (like saying that space laser and unicorns could have destroyed the building) ....

King Mob wrote: »

But just to point it out, you are again resorting
to the "well so are you" tactic of debate.

fair enough i'll accept that you can't meet the higher standards that i hold myself to for evidence and making claims.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

i have to point them out again? and now you feel like answering them, though only if you feel they aren't stupid (like checking for explosives when doing an enquiry into 911) or immature (like saying that space laser and unicorns could have destroyed the building) ....

I've already pointed to people who actually believe this.

davoxx wrote: »

fair enough i'll accept that you can't meet the higher standards that i hold myself to for evidence and making claims.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74435582&postcount=33

Your question here does not make sense.
What exactly do you want me to provide evidence for?
That the NIST didn't test for lasers and nukes?

enno99

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2618796568154709236

Here is a first responder that cleaned up building 7 site

says he saw bodies /drugs

Scott told us that the government video taped most of the clean up at Building 7. That means that somewhere out there is a complete video record for scientific and forensic analysis. Additionally Scott told us that he saw no one inspecting the debris for the purpose of gathering information as to what caused the collapse of Building 7

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

i have to point them out again? and now you feel like answering them, though only if you feel they aren't stupid (like checking for explosives when doing an enquiry into 911) or immature (like saying that space laser and unicorns could have destroyed the building) ....

Anybody can say anything happened... everyone is entitled to their opinion. But evidence leads to what is actually done or not.

I'm getting more and more stunned by the fact you can't see they don't test for things there's no evidence for. You might think they should and good luck to you. But in the real world investigations go where the evidence takes them. A small child could get this point.

Your stance seems to be they ignored the possibility of explosives, but nothing is further from the truth. They found nothing, nada, **** all to show there was any explosives so that's that, done, finito. No amount of you wanting the world to work differently will change those very simple facts.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

I've already pointed to people who actually believe this.

Just to clarify, this thread is about the possibility that explosives may have been involved in 9/11. The question was raised as to why explosives were not tested for.

Explosives and space lasers are not the same. Using explosives to demolish a building is common practice. On the other hand, there have been no recorded incidents of space lasers demolishing a building. It is completely feasible for a group of people to move the amount of explosives required to demolish a building (or even just cause the explosions depicted in the video). On the other hand, an extremely large amount of energy would be required for a space laser to demolish a building, technology which does not exist yet.
Do you understand this difference?

King Mob wrote: »

Your question here does not make sense.
What exactly do you want me to provide evidence for?
That the NIST didn't test for lasers and nukes?

Your argument is that some people somewhere believe space lasers are involved and because no one checked for space lasers, what? That because you expect that most people would not believe in the space laser theory, that you can infer something about the possibility that explosives were involved?

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

Just to clarify, this thread is about the possibility that explosives may have been involved in 9/11. The question was raised as to why explosives were not tested for.

Actually it was started to discuss a clearly fake video, but since it's painfully obvious that the video is fake, you guys have moved on rather than attempt to defend such a silly position.

davoxx wrote: »

Explosives and space lasers are not the same. Using explosives to demolish a building is common practice. On the other hand, there have been no recorded incidents of space lasers demolishing a building. It is completely feasible for a group of people to move the amount of explosives required to demolish a building (or even just cause the explosions depicted in the video). On the other hand, an extremely large amount of energy would be required for a space laser to demolish a building, technology which does not exist yet.
Do you understand this difference?

And all those arguments you just used against the space laser theory can be used against your prefered one.
There's no recorded incidents of terrorists sneaking thousands of tons of explosives into a skyscraper, or smashing planes into them either.
Thousands of tons of explosive would be required to demolish a building.
And if you believe the thermite theory, also relies on technology that doesn't exist yet.

And then there's the nuke theory which you're conveniently forgetting.
A theory that is far more feasible than space lasers and even plani old explosives.

davoxx wrote: »

Your argument is that some people somewhere believe space lasers are involved and because no one checked for space lasers, what? That because you expect that most people would not believe in the space laser theory, that you can infer something about the possibility that explosives were involved?

I've been very clear what my point is. The only reason you can't understand it is because you don't want to think about it.

We think that the NIST did not need to test for explosives for exactly the same reasons you believe that they didn't need to test for space lasers or nukes.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Anybody can say anything happened... everyone is entitled to their opinion. But evidence leads to what is actually done or not.

That everyone includes the media, the investigators, the political leaders. Evidence can be held back/destroyed/altered. Has all the evidence collected in the investigations of 9/11 been released?

meglome wrote: »

I'm getting more and more stunned by the fact you can't see they don't test for things there's no evidence for. You might think they should and good luck to you. But in the real world investigations go where the evidence takes them. A small child could get this point.

Because in the real world all investigations are carried out by professionals who can never be misdirected. And in the real world they are always carried out in the absolute pursuit of the truth and without political or personal motivation. And in the real world people in power never have ulterior motives. And in the real world, governments never lie to the public. Sounds like an argument made by a small child all right.

meglome wrote: »

Your stance seems to be they ignored the possibility of explosives, but nothing is further from the truth. They found nothing, nada, **** all to show there was any explosives so that's that, done, finito. No amount of you wanting the world to work differently will change those very simple facts.

They didn't test for explosives, fact.

And what do you even mean by saying I want the world to work differently?

MrThrifty

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..."

Anyway, my 2-cents is that there could well have been some form of government conspiracy behind 9/11 (not necessarily involving building explosives but possibly just not preventing it based on intelligence at the time), but there ain't a chance in hell of proving this, so just keep an open mind and move on...

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Actually it was started to discuss a clearly fake video, but since it's painfully obvious that the video is fake, you guys have moved on rather than attempt to defend such a silly position.

Ah, the rigorous proof by being painfully obvious approach. Didn't learn that one in Logic 101.

And all those arguments you just used against the space laser theory can be used against your prefered one.
There's no recorded incidents of terrorists sneaking thousands of tons of explosives into a skyscraper, or smashing planes into them either.
Thousands of tons of explosive would be required to demolish a building.

Thousands of tons are required to demolish buildings? Wow, how the people who routinely demolish buildings do their work then? And how did a few fires manage to demolish it then?

And if you believe the thermite theory, also relies on technology that doesn't exist yet.

And if I don't?

And then there's the nuke theory which you're conveniently forgetting.
A theory that is far more feasible than space lasers and even plani old explosives.

Well, if it's even more feasible than demolishing buildings with explosives, which you seem to think requires thousands of tons of explosives, then why don't professional demolishers use nukes?

I've been very clear what my point is. The only reason you can't understand it is because you don't want to think about it.

We think that the NIST did not need to test for explosives for exactly the same reasons you believe that they didn't need to test for space lasers or nukes.

We?

Well, if you think it's takes thousands of tons of explosives to demolish a building, then I can see your point. I've thought about it. And it's wrong.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

Ah, the rigorous proof by being painfully obvious approach. Didn't learn that one in Logic 101.

So you think that the video is real and totally undoctored?

davoxx wrote: »

Thousands of tons are required to demolish buildings? Wow, how the people who routinely demolish buildings do their work then? And how did a few fires manage to demolish it then?

By clearing out the building, stripping it down and working for months.
And this is all for buildings much smaller than any of the towers.

davoxx wrote: »

And if I don't?

I'd love to know why you don't without using reasoning that equally applies to the thoeries you do buy.

davoxx wrote: »

Well, if it's even more feasible than demolishing buildings with explosives, which you seem to think requires thousands of tons of explosives, then why don't professional demolishers use nukes?

Radioactive fallout? Prohibitive cost?

But again you've tried to misrepresent what I'm typed.
Terrorists planting one nuke per building is far more possible than them somehow planting thousands of tons of explosives without being noticed.

So why didn't they test for nuclear bombs?

davoxx wrote: »

We?

Me, Meglome, anyone with basic common sense?

davoxx wrote: »

Well, if you think it's takes thousands of tons of explosives to demolish a building, then I can see your point. I've thought about it. And it's wrong.

What's wrong?
Do you think they should have tested for stuff there was no evidence for, yes or no?

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

So you think that the video is real and totally undoctored?

I think it's painfully obvious that you haven't given any proof that it isn't.

By clearing out the building, stripping it down and working for months.
And this is all for buildings much smaller than any of the towers.

They clear it for many reasons: to recycle, remove dangerous material, reduce debris etc. But still, thousands of tons? Just for reference, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT. It does not take that much force to cause a skyscraper to collapse. For example, we know that a single plane will do it.

I'd love to know why you don't without using reasoning that equally applies to the thoeries you do buy.

What theories do I buy?
Like thousands of tons of explosive reasoning?

Radioactive fallout? Prohibitive cost?

But again you've tried to misrepresent what I'm typed.
Terrorists planting one nuke per building is far more possible than them somehow planting thousands of tons of explosives without being noticed.

So why didn't they test for nuclear bombs?

Because, it wouldn't take thousands of tons of explosives? Because very few people have access to nuclear weapons? Because unlike explosives, nuclear weapons do weigh tons? A nuclear bomb would've caused an explosion, not a careful collapse? Because there would've been immediately detectable radioactive fallout? Because explosives can be moved in small amounts whereas it would take a relatively large transporter to move a nuclear bomb?

Me, Meglome, anyone with basic common sense?

Will you be using this common sense at any stage? Well, I suppose it is only basic.

What's wrong?
Do you think they should have tested for stuff there was no evidence for, yes or no?

They should test for as many possibilities as they can, based on likelihood and ease of testing. Explosives were possible. Get it?

It seems quite clear that your only argument against the possibility of explosives is that it would take thousands of tons to demolish a building. And as I've said, that's wrong. Use some of that basic common sense and you'll see that.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

I think it's painfully obvious that you haven't given any proof that it isn't.

And that's not an answer to the question, hence you know that the video is as fake as I do, you simply don't want to admit it.
It's getting tedious trying to pin CTers to answer straight questions.

davoxx wrote: »

They clear it for many reasons: to recycle, remove dangerous material, reduce debris etc. But still, thousands of tons? Just for reference, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT. It does not take that much force to cause a skyscraper to collapse. For example, we know that a single plane will do it.

And one of which is to gain access to important parts of the structure. Which they couldn't do in secret.

davoxx wrote: »

Because, it wouldn't take thousands of tons of explosives? Because very few people have access to nuclear weapons? Because unlike explosives, nuclear weapons do weigh tons? A nuclear bomb would've caused an explosion, not a careful collapse? Because there would've been immediately detectable radioactive fallout? Because explosives can be moved in small amounts whereas it would take a relatively large transporter to move a nuclear bomb?

And again, I can and often have presented many arguments along those line against explosives.
But just because you can explain why it's hard or unlikely doesn't seem to have any impact on what you think is possible.

davoxx wrote: »

They should test for as many possibilities as they can, based on likelihood and ease of testing. Explosives were possible. Get it?

And space lasers and nukes are both possibilities, and testing for them should have been easy, so why didn't they?
What makes these explanations impossible or unlikely, and why doesn't the same apply to your theory?

davoxx wrote: »

It seems quite clear that your only argument against the possibility of explosives is that it would take thousands of tons to demolish a building. And as I've said, that's wrong. Use some of that basic common sense and you'll see that.

It's not my only argument, but you don't read my posts properly, so It's clearly too much to expect you to know my arguments.

enno99

The significance of the video I posted earlier. He seems to agree with Barry Jennings that there were bodies in building 7
Barry also said there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed
NIST ignored him why?
Because they would have to move away from their mandate to show how the building fell from office fires and some structural damage
And contemplate explosives

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

The significance of the video I posted earlier. He seems to agree with Barry Jennings that there were bodies in building 7
Barry also said there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed
NIST ignored him why?
Because they would have to move away from their mandate to show how the building fell from office fires and some structural damage
And contemplate explosives

There were no casualties in WTC7.
There couldn't have been bodies.
No photographic evidence shows these bodies.

His interview was edited and manipulated by a dishonest hack, and Jennings had since said as much.
So how come you're ignoring him?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

There were no casualties in WTC7.
There couldn't have been bodies.
No photographic evidence shows these bodies.

His interview was edited and manipulated by a dishonest hack, and Jennings had since said as much.
So how come you're ignoring him?

your ignoring the full video because you would have to admit it was not edited and be HONEST like you ask of everyone else

Craig Miller secret service agent found in rubble of building 7 post on a government website

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

your ignoring the full video because you would have to admit it was not edited and be HONEST like you ask of everyone else

I have watched the entire interview, it's still edited and dishonestly leading. And Dylan Aveary is a dishonest hack who has since distanced himself from his old work such as this interview.
And then Jennings himself has said that the interview is misleading.

Why are you ignoring what he has to say?

enno99 wrote: »

Craig Miller secret service agent found in rubble of building 7 post on a government website

Source please.
And even if you somehow provide it, you've one guy. One guy does not fill a lobby with bodies.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I have watched the entire interview, it's still edited and dishonestly leading. And Dylan Aveary is a dishonest hack who has since distanced himself from his old work such as this interview.
And then Jennings himself has said that the interview is misleading.

Why are you ignoring what he has to say?

Source please.
And even if you somehow provide it, you've one guy. One guy does not fill a lobby with bodies.

Sorry but the link has been taken down but its been reported on many sites

Avery is not the issue Barry Jennings said what he said he was not misrepresented or misquoted
He could have had a number of reasons to withdraw what he said but the fact remains he said it
Why would he lie for Avery a nobody with a camera and no money to bribe him?

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Sorry but the link has been taken down but its been reported on many sites

Ah well in that case I'll just accept what I'm told then and stop asking questions.

enno99 wrote: »

Avery is not the issue Barry Jennings said what he said he was not misrepresented or misquoted
He could have had a number of reasons to withdraw what he said but the fact remains he said it
Why would he lie for Avery a nobody with a camera and no money to bribe him?

And he also said that he was misrepresented, so which should I listen to and which should I ignore?

But hey why should it bother me that Avery has distanced himself from the interview and his other claims....

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

And that's not an answer to the question, hence you know that the video is as fake as I do, you simply don't want to admit it.

you know what i know yet you don't understand what i understand ... it is all very confusing.

so proof/evidence count for the video being "fake" = 0
but i need evidence in my post

King Mob wrote: »

Page 36 of the report does not say that the FBI concluded anything. It was the opinion of one field agent who thought it might be a front. Even he didn't conclude anything.

You have nothing to support the idea that the FBI concluded they are a front.

why do i need evidence (that you have to accept) when you don't need any to prove any point you make?

davoxx

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74459298&postcount=141
thousand of tons of explosives ... one nuke = 13000 tons ... which flattened a city ... sorry but i just don't see it

King Mob wrote: »

It's not my only argument, but you don't read my posts properly, so It's clearly too much to expect you to know my arguments.

it's too much for anyone (who is not you) to know and understand them, that is true.







maybe if i had a space laser and some unicorns ....

Davoxx your posts are incoherent and immature.
There's no point arguing with you any more when you can't actually discuss something in straight, honest, adult manner.

Maybe you can try again when you're able to deal with the idea that you might be wrong.