Should we just focus on Building 7?

a reply to: Anthem0

No, the ignorance stems from you not be willing to accept that it was pretty cut and dried as to why the buildings failed that day. The steel that you think was immediately shipped overseas and destroyed gave clear evidence as to why it failed.

I see, so the debate has been reduced over whether it was 12 videos (which Grendel0596 said), or 80 videos (which I said) or 29 that they're withholding from the public. So none of you actually disagree with the point that the videos which could potentially help PROVE what happened at the Pentagon that morning one way or another being withheld, just that they're only admitting to having 29 videos of the Pentagon grounds from that morning and not 12 or 80+.

Of course, without seeing them, we don't know, we just have to take their word for it, which is kind of my entire point, but kudos on the semantics. According to them, they've only admitted to hiding 29 videos of the grounds, not the 80+ they admit may be relevant to the inquiry, despite not being of the grounds from that morning.

Is this supposed to change something? Is this what qualifies for an argument -- a semantics debate on the number of admittedly withheld videos in the possession of an secretive, dishonest, evidence-destroying authority?

Is there any length you all won't go to to avoid admitting you have NO PROOF that the OS is true? Distractions, distractions...

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Anthem0

No, the ignorance stems from you not be willing to accept that it was pretty cut and dried as to why the buildings failed that day. The steel that you think was immediately shipped overseas and destroyed gave clear evidence as to why it failed.

ROFL, so it's exactly as I said in my first post in this thread. Here, I'll quote myself:

Why was ALL the material evidence of all three collapsed WTC buildings immediately shipped overseas and destroyed, despite this being an unforgivably egregious breach of protocol during a crime investigation? Because they already knew what happened so no need to investigate! Amiright?!

And to think, it only took you 2 pages to parrot back my sarcastic initial response (bolded for emphasis) right on cue. Well played Grendel, well played.

a reply to: Anthem0

So lets just gloss over the fact that you seemed oblivious to 9/11 turning into biggest investigation in American history for a second....

Why would they test for explosives?

Really, the only people who have ever claimed that explosives were ever used have been conspiracy theorists to everyone else even at the time it was pretty darn obvious why the buildings collapsed.

NIST did however conceder explosives:

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event. In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

That kind of sums it up.

Why would NIST or anyone for that matter test for explosives when there is nothing to suggest explosives were used?

would that not be like testing for gun residue on a hit and run victim?

a reply to: Anthem0


Umm nope, you are still pushing the idea that it was all shipped overseas, another patent falsehood. They analyzed a couple hundred pieces of steel, along with hundreds of photos, videos and recordings, they were able to establish the chain of events. Like OtherSide said, you don't test a hit and run victim for gunpowder residue.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Anthem0

So lets just gloss over the fact that you seemed oblivious to 9/11 turning into biggest investigation in American history for a second....

Why would they test for explosives?

Haha, and right one cue, you appear and parrot the same response. Beautiful.

Let's not gloss over the fact that you seem oblivious to NFPA fire and explosion standards. Sure, you can ignore all the proof of molten metal at the site (you'll almost have to in order to stay consistent with the OS), but it's presence is in both photos, videos, and witness testimony. The testing for exotic accelerants/explosive residue is VERY standard in such situations.

BTW, I do appreciate your tacit admission that they DIDN'T in fact test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue. Which only serves to embolden my point. Such an action would not only have been prudent to prove their OS, but it would have been the standard behavior considering NFPA fire and explosion standards. The fact that they DELIBERATELY did not test, and furthermore destroyed virtually of the evidence (thus preventing anyone else from testing it as well) does not bode well in the "proof that the OS is true" category.

Furthermore, any legitimate investigation of a fire, let alone entire building collapses, results in testing for exotic accelerants/explosive residue. The entire collapse of 3 skyscrapers due to fire is as clear a case as possible for following NFPA standards.

It's like I said in my first post: Sure, you can contrive paragraphs of unlikely but theoretically possible answers to all these questions, but there is also a singular simple alternative which answers these questions and every other head-scratching aspect of that day: they (the government) are LYING about and covering up what actually happened.

Really, the only people who have ever claimed that explosives were ever used have been conspiracy theorists to everyone else even at the time it was pretty darn obvious why the buildings collapsed.

Yeah, conspiracy theorists and the hundreds of witnesses and firemen who heard explosions. And the molten metal (which you'll deny on cue or ignore outright since you have no integrity). And the extreme temperatures which persisted for 3 months. These things all suggest at least the POSSIBILITY of exotic accelerants/explosives. And since any legit investigation would have at least tested for that possibility, I can only responsibly conclude that it wasn't a legitimate investigation of the crime.

NIST did however conceder explosives:

That kind of sums it up.

Why would NIST or anyone for that matter test for explosives when there is nothing to suggest explosives were used?

would that would be like testing for gun residue on a hit and run victim?

ROFL. Right on cue, you post to a gov website which, unsurprisingly, defends their decision to not test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue. You're certainly free to do so, but that hardly constitutes proof of anything other than you saying "the government said so."

Why would an investigate into the collapse of a building or 3 explore all the possibilities when it could just declare. I mean, it's not like an investigate is supposed to actually, you know, investigate what happened, amiright? Wouldn't want anyone getting to the bottom of that rabbit hole.

Nothing to suggest explosives were used? Amazing. More like "nothing to suggest fire collapsed WTC7." Other than government say so, naturally. But that was of course the responsible thing to do, I understand.

But this is all besides the point. Where's the PROOF that fire collapsed WTC7? It's certainly not precedent or actual evidence. It's all conjecture and theory. Just like controlled demo, aye? Isn't that why one would investigate at all?

The question you should be asking is why even bother investigating at all if they already knew what happened? Hell, isn't that what the administration wanted? To not even bother having an investigation, since it was all so self-evident?

a reply to: Anthem0

And again, he shows that he does not do honest research. The building collapses were investigated, the wreckage was studied, and the conclusion arrived at by the professionals in the fields that fire/damage caused those buildings to come down.

So, once again we have no audio or video proof of demolition charges. We have no demolition wiring being found in any of the debris. We have absolutely no physical evidence of demolition charges.

We DO have engineers that studied the audio, video, still photos, survivor statements, the steel/aluminum, and who found all the evidence of a fire/damage induced collapse.


Then there is you claiming something that there is absolutely no proof of.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Anthem0

Umm nope, you are still pushing the idea that it was all shipped overseas, another patent falsehood. They analyzed a couple hundred pieces of steel, along with hundreds of photos, videos and recordings, they were able to establish the chain of events. Like OtherSide said, you don't test a hit and run victim for gunpowder residue.

And you, Grendel, are still playing semantic games, harping on the word ALL (even has a strikethrough through it). And still ignoring the point that the evidence which could easily have PROVED the OS was destroyed and never tested. You seem utterly incapable of addressing the central point of arguments and only appear to be interested in semantic minutiae. That is troll behavior, you know?

And investigators would totally test a hit and run victim for gunpowder residue if he had a smoking gun in his hands. Or a fresh bullethole in his chest (I mean god forbid the thought of someone being run over AND shot). Or in any other number of situations. Just like you'd test a collapsed building sitting in a steaming several thousand degree pile of rubble which persists for months with molten metal underneath. I mean, a legitimate investigation would at least consider the possibility that fire alone wasn't the culprit, considering the total lack of precedent.

So yeah, step your metaphor game up.

Still waiting for that proof of the OS guys? Any day now will be acceptable.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Anthem0

And again, he shows that he does not do honest research. The building collapses were investigated, the wreckage was studied, and the conclusion arrived at by the professionals in the fields that fire/damage caused those buildings to come down.

mmhmmm. So your argument is they came to this conclusion and didn't bother testing to confirm it? Do you have idea how routine exotic accelerant/explosive residue tests are? You honestly don't see a problem with that? Please answer no so I can write you off entirely Grendel. Your entire argument is an appeal to authority. Just admit it. You required NO PROOF, just the authority's say so that fire did it. Testing/proof be damned! We have conjecture!

a reply to: Anthem0

That would be Cardinalfan0596, not Grendal (which actually, would be a violation of T&C). And again, you fail to do proper research on the investigations into the collapse. You should try reading the materials on the NIST site in regards to the investigation of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2.

a reply to: Anthem0

Why are you surprised that an underground fire with plenty of fuel and fresh air would stay burning? And that the temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, copper, zinc and a few other metals that were in the debris pile? Wait....I forget, you do not do proper research.

They would test for it simply to eliminate it. But please let's not get caught up in that opinion. There is another serious matter discuss. You have almost been convincing and is seriously consider what you say if you can clear up one thing for me: FEMA was the group who says there was a couple of steel samples from WTC7. NIST says there was not. You yourself just said they never tested it and you even don't know why they would. With no steel to anyalyze, they only used the word "considered" in the question, yet NIST responded that it was "investigated carefully". That is troublesome wording if they think an investigation is complete without physical evidence, but I won't disregard them simply for that. My interpretation of the rest of the report is that they considered and rejected it because they considered how much effort it would be to rig the building and also decided that in their opinion the types of explosives they so thoughtfully considered would have been louder. Can you spin that any other way to me that would make it sound as if they eliminated explosives entirely and definitively based solely on opinion and speculation (granted educated)? Can you convince me that there may have been the possibility of types of explosives unkown to the investigators? Also, can you then convince me that they definitively stated natural collapse based on physical evidence as opposed to speculation when they themselves said they didn't have any samples to test their theories on? What I'm saying is that what they said is definitely a possibility, but are you 100% convinced based on the fact that just because this is a high probability also means definitively that it was what happened? a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

a reply to: Anthem0

A big part of the problem in trying to address the points you are raising is that you don't give any specifics its all rather vague. When you talk about melting steel then what proof of melting steel do you have what do you mean specifically because there are several different takes on it, you could be talking about the pockets of molten steel said to be found, you could be talking about the fire-fighters whiteness statements or you could be talking about any number of photos. Each of these have different explanations but unless you are more specific the debate will not go any further.

This is a constant problem in your argument, your total lack of evidence you make statements with zero proof presented to back them up. Like who actually said it was a requirement to check for explosive residue? you are so hung up on one point that even if it had any credibility (which it does not) would still not be enough on its own to cast serious doubt on the official story.

The NIST explanation has a huge level of support, those in the scientific community who doubt it are in such a small minority that it is negligible. If it were really such a obvious controlled demolition that even a layman could figure it out then I am pretty sure a reputable scientific body would have spoken out by now. But over a decade later and there has been nothing.

I also think you really need to spend a little more time on putting your arguments together because all the "ROFLing", denial and insurances in your post make your arguments totally mute.

a reply to: TheBolt

Forgive me if I am asking you to repeat yourself but I have read over your post a few times and I am not to sure what your question is.

Could you perhaps try putting it a little differently?

Thanks and sorry again.

Actually I read it again and it was confusing. Sorry. Lol. I guess to sum up: NIST says they didn't have any steel or structure from WTC7 to physically investigate yet they say they investigated for explosives. They eliminated it, if Im reading it right, on the basis that it would have been too hard to coordinate and actually set up the explosives, and also that the noises would have been more prominent. They are also convinced of natural collapse, again based on my interpretation of their report, not because of pieces they could examine but rather on what they feel is the most probable cause from video and photographic evidence and eye witness testimony. My two questions are: 1)are you 100% convinced that there is not even a possibility of there being types of explosives unknown to NIST investigators that they didn't consider and if so, why? 2)I fully admit that as far as natural collapse the idea the present is plausible. But are you 100% convinced of natural collapse because you feel they proved it definitively or just because it's currently the highest probable cause? I really want to be convinced here. PO a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

a reply to: TheBolt

My two questions are: 1)are you 100% convinced that there is not even a possibility of there being types of explosives unknown to NIST investigators that they didn't consider and if so,

Just how do you test for an unknown ?
If you don't know that a disease exists what test would you use to find out if someone has it ?

Explosives make loud noises. Watch and listen to any Youtube video of CD.
Nothing like that was heard.
That rules out explosives.
Even Labtops mystic super powerful explosives.

I think you misunderstood my question. But now that you bring it up, they didn't test for any explosives, known or unknown. Not because they didn't know how but because they didn't have the physical remains of building 7 to run tests on. With that in mind, are you 100% convinced that there is not even a possibility of their being a type of explosive unknown to investigators
that might exhibit traits they weren't looking for? Also, even though they had no rubble to test, do you believe they proved natural collapse 100% definitively with no other possible option, or do you only believe it because there is no good alternative? I'd actually like to know your answer too.

originally posted by: TheBolt
do you believe they proved natural collapse 100% definitively with no other possible option,

What are you babbling about now? Who claimed it was a natural collapse? Why do truthers just make crap up, ignoring the building was damaged by WTC 1 collapsing, and unchecked fires for hours. It is as if the only websites you visit are silly truther conspiracy theory websites, ignoring the real world.

a reply to: TheBolt

are you 100% convinced that there is not even a possibility of their being a type of explosive unknown to investigators
that might exhibit traits they weren't looking for?

Just like a signature characteristic of a gun shot victim is blood.
A signature characteristic of CD explosives is a series of loud booms.
There were no series of booms.
If there were the conspiracy sites would be playing the audio till the cows came home.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596 in page 20 :
The rest of the NYPD chopper photos do not show the base of WTC 7 where FDNY reported the heaviest damage. A reply to: LaBTop

That's straight out deliberate misinformation, and you must know it.!
Deliver those FDNY reports.!
You can't.!

There was no serious WTC 7 base damage after WTC1N came down, only lots of broken windows and doors glass in the Atrium and below that, at street level, on the south side. There was a concrete deck over that lower street, that deck lead from WTC1N and the Plaza level, to the main entrance of the Atrium. At street level you had the glass facade with also lots of broken glass, that gave entrance to the escalators and the huge moving stairways.
I once linked to a FDNY report, that said that a chief ordered to check the fifth and upper floors for damage, by following the outer corridors. The fireman reported back that there was no damage deeper than that corridor, and lots of doors were closed of course.

All the FDNY reports described the higher up damage, above the seventh floor level, which was later by NIST explained away as insignificant for the collapse. It were solely the fires that brought WTC 7 down, according to NIST.
See my Sig-links that prove them wrong, very wrong.