It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 21
9
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
It is not very often that buildings of that size are destroyed, and 7 was relatively young.


Actually no buildings that tall have ever been demolished using the implosion method.

This was the tallest building ever imploded, at 23 stories...

J.L. Hudson Department Store

Pity they didn't know all they had to do was set fire to it eh?




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



Science does not work like you suggest. It never deals in certainties, it deals in "best explanation available".

I never suggested any such thing! You sound a bit delirious to me. I simply pointed out that NIST's computer-model doesn't appear to faithfully replicate the actual collapse. How is that me suggesting science deals in 'certainties'? You're not making much sense, to me.



It is not faith why I accept those models, it is authority. Sure, authority can be wrong, but I rather base my opinion on a large group of experts than laymen on the internet

Of course it is. You are accepting NIST's hypothesis as true even though it has not undergone any sort of independent scientific scrutiny whatsoever as the scientific method demands it should do. That is how science progresses, by falsification, but NIST's hypothesis is unfalsifiable and thus intrinsically unscientific. The question of who you choose to believe is irrelevant to the facts about WTC7. Belief is not the same as knowledge and taking the word of your preferred scientific authorities on blind faith leaves you none the wiser about what actually happened. NIST is an agency of the US government remember and the 'evidence' could all be being manufactured to satisfy the requirements of a political agenda instead of being kept scrupulously authentic and faithful to the observed truth. Do you agree that that's a real possibility, or not?



The main thing they have in common is that they all lack evidence. Making the assertion (for example) that WTC7 does not appear to share characteristics of a fire induced collapse is not evidence on itself. It is just an assertion. You now have to show me your evidence or line of reasoning how you came to that conclusions.

You've got the wrong idea about this PLB, I don't 'have to do' anything. NIST are the ones making the extraordinary claim that office fire on 8-floors caused the free-fall global destruction of a 47-story building, which has never happened in the history of the world, ever before, and so they are the ones who have to provide the evidence for their extraordinary claim. (Assuming that they want others to believe their claim is true, that is. Of course if they don't want to be believed then they don't have to provide any supporting evidence, that's true. But if you must know, the 'evidence' that I think is important here is free-fall acceleration, as that can only occur if there are 'no structural components underneath the falling section of the building', according to NIST, which means all, or nearly all structural components must have been removed forcibly and more or less, simultaneously. I can only chuckle incredulously at the thought of fire doing that. Still, I shall keep an open mind and wait with bated breath to be shocked to my toenails by your compelling evidence.


1) but it does not look like CD because internal/penthouse collapse

So, you don't believe that WTC7 could have been a controlled demolition because the penthouse collapsed before the building? You appear overly preoccupied with the penthouse collapse to me PLB and are reading too much into it. Others have already given explanations for that in the thread. If the building was collapsing from the inside for 7 seconds, why is there no movement of the roof-line in the videos for that duration, even though inward-sagging is clearly visible in NIST's models? There appears to be a disparity here that remains unexplained.



In that case, do you for example think that calling WTC7 a CD without any visible or audible charges going off fair?

Well then, I recommend you take a look at the video-links on the last page.


This is a problem for me. Your definition of "own footprint" is still open for interpretation, and Delft may have been falling in that definition

Whatever you say.
edit on 17-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
NIST are the ones making the extraordinary claim that office fire on 8-floors [as well as structural damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower] caused the [partial] free-fall global destruction of a 47-story building, which has never happened in the history of the world, ever before, and so they are the ones who have to provide the evidence for their extraordinary claim.


Emphasis mine. You know what else never happened in the history of the world, ever? Airliners being used as missiles going full throttle into a skyscraper. Never happened in the history of the world. Does that make it impossible?

You know what else happened? The water lines got damaged. WTC 7 had no water dousing the floors in liquid. Normally, that would prevent the fires from getting as hot as they would without them. Also, read up on the damage to WTC 7 caused by the falling debris from Tower 1. The firefighters were fairly extensive in their reports. Don't ignore them now, ya hear!

edit on 17-5-2012 by Varemia because: forgot a word



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

We have the squibs,


You have fairy tales. Nor do you have photo nor video evidence of anything that could be called squibs in the bucklinmg zone of 7.


and as I said earlier, I don't care about the sound in these videos.


Rational people do. Rational people realize that any lack of explosive sounds on video means that it didn't happen. You are in the minority.


Unless you were there whatever you say about the sounds is meaningless and couldn;t possibly be more irrelevant....



So then the same goes for you when you state that lack of audio evidence is irrelevant, right?

Or are you exempt from that standard?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
It was a controlled demolition. Anyone thinking otherwise is the real conspirator.


The End~


It was a terrorist act. Anyone thinking otherwise is a terrorist apologist.





The End~



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Actually no buildings that tall have ever been demolished using the implosion method.

This was the tallest building ever imploded, at 23 stories...



And 23 stories is still the record.

Cuz truther beliefs about 7 being CD'ed are pure fantasy



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by Human_Alien
It was a controlled demolition. Anyone thinking otherwise is the real conspirator.


The End~


It was a terrorist act. Anyone thinking otherwise is a terrorist apologist.





The End~
Terrorists?


Watch this and get back to us....

The Real Story Behind Aliens_ Ufos_ Demons_ Illuminati & Satanism.

www.youtube.com...#!



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

I never suggested any such thing! You sound a bit delirious to me. I simply pointed out that NIST's computer-model doesn't appear to faithfully replicate the actual collapse. How is that me suggesting science deals in 'certainties'? You're not making much sense, to me.


Because you seem to think that a model must be an exact match else its useless. That is not the case.

As one of the few truthers who seems civilized I wonder why you felt you needed to resort to name calling.


Of course it is.
...
Do you agree that that's a real possibility, or not?


You are presenting a false dichotomy here. Something is not either based on faith or based on the scientific method. And I reject your claim that NIST conclusions are unfalsifiable. What that basically means is that we can't possibly know how the WTC buildings collapsed.

Maybe their work is not open for scrutiny, but a lot of their data and their conclusions are. Anyone is free to build their own model that shows NIST is wrong. In fact MI5 claims to have found a flaw in NIST's work. Although he is net helpful in sharing his findings.

The odd thing is, earlier in this thread you claimed that scientific literature already exists that falsifies NIST. Do you now agree that the "literature" you were referring to is not scientific at all?

I do not agree that it is possible that NIST is used as a puppet by certain people in the government. There are too many highly educated engineers involved who would most certainly figure it out (I mean, if the people on this board can, so can they) and speak out. The probability is just so extremely low that I regard it as impossible.

Instead, I am almost certain that the truthers are wrong.


You've got the wrong idea about this PLB, I don't 'have to do' anything.


Of course not. But if you want people to believe you, you do. In general people are not just going to take the word of a laymen on complicated subjects.


NIST are the ones making the extraordinary claim that office fire on 8-floors caused the free-fall global destruction of a 47-story building, which has never happened in the history of the world, ever before, and so they are the ones who have to provide the evidence for their extraordinary claim.
...
Still, I shall keep an open mind and wait with bated breath to be shocked to my toenails by your compelling evidence.


We are back at the start. NIST has done their homework, now its the turn of the people who oppose NIST theory. For example, Quintiere thought NIST was wrong and he came with solid evidence that he was right. What has the truth movement produced?

And of course, irregardless of NIST, you will always have to support your own claims. I have already addressed the issue of removing all structural components simultaneously in an exchange with SimontheMagus. He decided that I am a troll for reasons unclear to me, but you can read, at least to me, very reasonable explanations for that.



So, you don't believe that WTC7 could have been a controlled demolition because the penthouse collapsed before the building? You appear overly preoccupied with the penthouse collapse to me PLB and are reading too much into it. Others have already given explanations for that in the thread. If the building was collapsing from the inside for 7 seconds, why is there no movement of the roof-line in the videos for that duration, even though inward-sagging is clearly visible in NIST's models? There appears to be a disparity here that remains unexplained.


Your logic is backwards. I am not saying that WTC7 could not be a controlled demolition because of that. I am saying that the argument that WTC is probably a CD because it looks like CD is wrong. As it does not look like CD at all when you look at the details.

Regarding your question about movement of the roof line, what does it matter? Why would behavior be different when explosives or fire removes the load capacity? That is a matter you, and other truthers, keeps ignoring.


Well then, I recommend you take a look at the video-links on the last page.


You are not answering my question. You call it unfair that I compare WTC7 to delft because of distinct differences. I ask you if it is fair to compare WTC7 to CD as there are also distinct differences. A fair answer would be "I don't regard the lack of bangs and flashes or the internal collapse as significant".

But at this stage, you lost me as a person who is genuinely interested in the truth. Details like this are VERY relevant, and make the difference between a cat and a dog (referring to my earlier analogy).


Whatever you say.


You put yourself in this position by taking a vague term and then say it has a significant meaning.

edit on 18-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



And I reject your claim that NIST conclusions are unfalsifiable. What that basically means is that we can't possibly know how the WTC buildings collapsed

No it doesn't. You're hopelessly confused PLB. I am discussing the science! Science is concerned with extracting information impartially from authentic real world data, is it not? But how can open public science operate properly on synthetic data that may have been biased, consciously or unconsciously, by the sole suppliers of it who are also promoting a social, economic and political cause on the basis of it as proof of their claims? They are not disinterested parties and they have refused to release their data for independent verification. NIST proposes to hide the truth from the public behind a wall of secrecy that is immune to the Freedom of Information Act, so that only insiders – the privileged elite – will have access to it. Therefore NIST's hypothesis is unfalsifiable, i.e. it cannot be proven false in the public domain because NIST refuses to allow its data to be critically scrutinized by anyone outside. I am surprised that you seem to find this point so difficult to acknowledge as it appears to me to be a standard principle of scientific methodology.



You are presenting a false dichotomy here. Something is not either based on faith or based on the scientific method.

No I'm not – you just can't read a sentence of mine without turning it into something else in your mind. I said that your belief WTC7 was destroyed by fire is based on nothing more than faith because NIST haven't provided a shred of evidence and even refuse to allow their data to be viewed by anyone apart from themselves. Hence you therefore have no choice but to take the NIST-proposition on faith because it is not open-science. It's as simple as that.



Because you seem to think that a model must be an exact match else its useless. That is not the case.

I never said that it had to be an 'exact match' down to every inconceivably small microscopic detail, but it must match nevertheless – and it doesn't.



As one of the few truthers who seems civilized I wonder why you felt you needed to resort to name calling.

You're hallucinating. I haven't been calling you any names.



The odd thing is, earlier in this thread you claimed that scientific literature already exists that falsifies NIST

I don't believe I used the word 'falsify', although I feel that scientific papers have provided cogent counterarguments using the conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and thermodynamics to NIST's theories concerning WTC1 and 2.



I do not agree that it is possible that NIST is used as a puppet by certain people in the government. There are too many highly educated engineers involved who would most certainly figure it out (I mean, if the people on this board can, so can they) and speak out. The probability is just so extremely low that I regard it as impossible

Oh PLB, this rosy image that you have of the scientific institutions and the people who inhabit them is quite illusory. Scientists are trained to question certain things and not to question others, especially not the instructions that come down to them from higher levels of authority. If they do dare to question those the wheels of power slip noiselessly into motion and their questions are stifled and disappeared, as the UL demonstrated in its treatment of Kevin Ryan.



Instead, I am almost certain that the truthers are wrong.

And yet you still have no proof WTC7 collapsed from fire, do you?



In general people are not just going to take the word of a laymen on complicated subjects.

You don't have to take my word – I wouldn't want you to. I'm just encouraging you to think independently for yourself instead of blindly deferring to so-called 'experts'.



We are back at the start. NIST has done their homework

No. It is a straightforward reassertion of your fantasy, that is all. NIST don't even explain the collapses of WTC1, 2 or 7, and only cover the 'initiation collapse' – they've got a lot more homework to do if they want to explain the collapses.



I addresse the issue of removing all structural components simultaneously

I can't speak for Simon, I am just saying what it takes for free-fall to become possible, i.e. there must be no resistance from the static mass below which means the resistance (columns) must have been forcibly removed simultaneously ahead of the collapse-wave. You argue that WTC7 was collapsing from inside for 7 seconds before the facade moved, the idea seems extraordinary to me, because the roof-line doesn't move at all during that time which is contradicted by NIST's models which shows significant inward-sagging of the roof-line.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



As it does not look like CD at all when you look at the details.

Wait... what? You're saying that WTC7 does not look like a controlled demolition, "at all?" I don't know what world you've stumbled into PLB, but it certainly isn't mine.



Regarding your question about movement of the roof line, what does it matter?

Are you deliberately being obtuse? If the inside of the structure was collapsing catastrophically for those 7 seconds, the roof-line should have moved, just as it does in NIST's models, but it does not. Do you need me to define 'catastrophically' for you?



You call it unfair that I compare WTC7 to delft because of distinct differences.

The Delft building only collapses partially and asymmetrically, not globally and symmetrically. How many times must this be pointed out to you? The problem is your own refusal to accept reality as it is without turning it into something else in your mind that you can control and manipulate. This is what you have done with my words and arguments from the start, i.e. you have refused to accept what I have actually said and have consistently turned it into something else that I didn't say instead in order to give yourself pretexts for dismissing and denigrating it. However the only person being fooled by these tricks of yours is you. You are only giving yourself a false version of reality to believe in as truth. If you want to delude yourself in this way then that is your choice and your look out. Don't expect me to play along with your sick game though. I have better things to do.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
It's true that the penthouse collapses before WTC7 but does that prove that the inside of WTC7 was collapsing too? I mean, there is no discernible movement of the roof-line. If WTC7 was collapsing from inside why didn't the facade move for 7 seconds? Again, it seems rather far-fetched to me. However, even if WTC7 did collapse from the inside first as you are proposing it did, it still requires a total destruction of the building's inner-supports, and I don't think fire can do that, especially not to a steel-framed building.


I can't believe they're still peddling the Penthouse collapse, and Jenga Blocks lol.

The Penthouse collapse is part of an implosion demolition, so it doesn't help their case to keep reminding us of it.


Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.


science.howstuffworks.com...

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

What did the sides of WTC 7 do?





edit on 5/18/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
No it doesn't. You're hopelessly confused PLB.
...
Therefore NIST's hypothesis is unfalsifiable, i.e. it cannot be proven false in the public domain because NIST refuses to allow its data to be critically scrutinized by anyone outside. I am surprised that you seem to find this point so difficult to acknowledge as it appears to me to be a standard principle of scientific methodology.


The data NIST's work is based on is available to the public. The only thing they did not release is their model. But everything their model is based on it available. And that is what you need to prove NIST wrong.

Like I already said, this is exactly what Quintiere did. Prove in case that it can be done.

It is funny that you call me confused while you recently claimed that NIST has been refuted by scientific literature.


No I'm not – you just can't read a sentence of mine without turning it into something else in your mind. I said that your belief WTC7 was destroyed by fire is based on nothing more than faith because NIST haven't provided a shred of evidence and even refuse to allow their data to be viewed by anyone apart from themselves. Hence you therefore have no choice but to take the NIST-proposition on faith because it is not open-science. It's as simple as that.


Your baseless assertion that NIST did not provide any evidence is not getting any more substantial by repeating it. There is loads of evidence in their reports that support their conclusion. This evidence can be checked by anyone. Ignoring this evidence does not make it go away. Hammering only on their model is very weak. In fact, on the university I studied it was not common at all to release your models when you publish something. Rather the contrary.


I never said that it had to be an 'exact match' down to every inconceivably small microscopic detail, but it must match nevertheless – and it doesn't.


Thats your opinion. Since you are a laymen on the subject its worth nothing.


You're hallucinating. I haven't been calling you any names.


Then why say my response is delirious? Did that add anything positive to your post?


I don't believe I used the word 'falsify', although I feel that scientific papers have provided cogent counterarguments using the conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and thermodynamics to NIST's theories concerning WTC1 and 2.


Which papers? I already asked this, and I am curious.


Oh PLB, this rosy image that you have of the scientific institutions and the people who inhabit them is quite illusory. Scientists are trained to question certain things and not to question others, especially not the instructions that come down to them from higher levels of authority. If they do dare to question those the wheels of power slip noiselessly into motion and their questions are stifled and disappeared, as the UL demonstrated in its treatment of Kevin Ryan.


I call b.s. on this. Scientists are trained not to question certain things and truthers are? You have no clue of what is going on at NIST or universities around the world. I do, as I studied at one.


And yet you still have no proof WTC7 collapsed from fire, do you?


So what counts as proof? I have enough evidence that points to the fact fire did it. 100% conclusive proof does not exist.


You don't have to take my word – I wouldn't want you to. I'm just encouraging you to think independently for yourself instead of blindly deferring to so-called 'experts'.


You are showing sings of grandeur. Both you and me lack the education to "think for ourselves" on subjects like these. I rely on experts on many things. You do too. For some reason you choose to "think for yourself" on this particular subject. With nearly every expert against you, you seem to know better because you think for yourself. This seems to be very irrational.


No. It is a straightforward reassertion of your fantasy, that is all. NIST don't even explain the collapses of WTC1, 2 or 7, and only cover the 'initiation collapse' – they've got a lot more homework to do if they want to explain the collapses.


No, you have a misconception of NIST's task. It is not to answer the questions of truthers. It was to find out what caused collapse so it can be prevented in the future. They wrote their findings in their reports, and it is up to truthers to show why their findings are wrong (like Quintiere did for example). Just asserting they are wrong is pretty much worthless.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Wait... what? You're saying that WTC7 does not look like a controlled demolition, "at all?" I don't know what world you've stumbled into PLB, but it certainly isn't mine.


In the same way a dog does not look like a cat at all. Reading comprehension. I think I was pretty clear with that analogy


Are you deliberately being obtuse? If the inside of the structure was collapsing catastrophically for those 7 seconds, the roof-line should have moved, just as it does in NIST's models, but it does not. Do you need me to define 'catastrophically' for you?


So you deny internal collapse? Please explain how the penthouse collapsed. And I am not going to debate another vague term, as this is tiring.


The Delft building only collapses partially and asymmetrically, not globally and symmetrically. How many times must this be pointed out to you?


And WTC7 didn't show any signs of bangs and flashes, and showed clear signs of internal collapse that you don't see with CD. How many times must this be pointed out?

Why your double standard?


The problem is your own refusal to accept reality as it is without turning it into something else in your mind that you can control and manipulate.


You mean like ignoring flashes and bangs and internal collapse? Because that is reality and you don't seem to accept it.


This is what you have done with my words and arguments from the start, i.e. you have refused to accept what I have actually said and have consistently turned it into something else that I didn't say instead in order to give yourself pretexts for dismissing and denigrating it. However the only person being fooled by these tricks of yours is you. You are only giving yourself a false version of reality to believe in as truth. If you want to delude yourself in this way then that is your choice and your look out. Don't expect me to play along with your sick game though. I have better things to do.


I don't accept what you say because it is based on exactly nothing. You can pretend as if I am evil, but my question like "why is WTC7 inconsistent with fire induced collapse" remains unanswered. You just assert that. If you think such questions are unfair debating tactics, you should reconsider your premise.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by Human_Alien
It was a controlled demolition. Anyone thinking otherwise is the real conspirator.


The End~


It was a terrorist act. Anyone thinking otherwise is a terrorist apologist.





The End~
Terrorists?


Watch this and get back to us....

The Real Story Behind Aliens_ Ufos_ Demons_ Illuminati & Satanism.

www.youtube.com...#!


I suddenly feel sorry for you since you believe that is either true, or a good rebuttal.

Hope you get better



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

I suddenly feel sorry for you since you believe that is either true, or a good rebuttal.

Hope you get better


How about a point by point refutation then, beginning with Bill Cooper and Aaron Russo?

Don't feel sorry for me, I know where I'm going. Do you know where they're taking you?

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - Edgar J Hoover
edit on 18-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Why do you keep saying things have been 'debunked'? Nothing has been debunked because it cant be. Maybe you have debunked it in your mind, but that carries no weight, just like your debunking statement.


Trust me, claims like "no interceptors were scrambled", "the hijackers are still alive" and "there were no fires in WTC 7" have been debunked left, right, up, and down. Do a Google search and you'll see loads of proof showing the claims have been debunked.


Paid shills are no secret agents, they are just idiots who are not capable of getting a proper job, and whose brains are so malleable that they will do as they are told, to the point that they believe their own BS.

The conspiracy claims are way past you, because you have nothing tangible to debunk the extensive research done by many people that know they are being lied to.


...and then there's the OTHER thing that cannot be debunked- the conspiracy theorists' near-religious need to rely on armies of imaginary sinister secret agents planted everywhere from the NYPA to the NYFD to NIST to FEMA to NORAD to the FAA, and the way some people say, even the Red Cross. Borrowing from religion's tenet of invisible and unfindable demons working to sow evil throughout the world is the only belief system that allows your conspiracies to make even a lick of sense. Of course every single person coming to ATS to criticise the conspiracy theorists' claims are sinister secret agents as well, and why wouldn't they be? You've given yourselves carte blanche license to accuse everyone and their hampster of being a sinister secret agent so what's a few more?

Sooner or later the conspiracy people are going to need to grow up and produce some tangible evidence that doesn't need to rely exclusively on the belief that the boogeyman did it.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





...and then there's the OTHER thing that cannot be debunked- the conspiracy theorists' near-religious need to rely on armies of imaginary sinister secret agents


Can prove it or are you just making it up as you do along?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





...and then there's the OTHER thing that cannot be debunked- the conspiracy theorists' near-religious need to rely on armies of imaginary sinister secret agents


Can prove it or are you just making it up as you do along?


Well whenever I listen or read "truther's claims about how the towers needed to be rigged, and the fire dept was in on the demolitions, and the NYPD was in on it, and the Port Authority, and the people that were seen on TV and in print saying they saw planes hitting the buildings, and giving opinions on how the towers came down (without mentioning explosives or demolitions), planted evidence of aircraft, media fakery, fake airplanes, missiles, fake video, scripted news casts, drone pilots, FEMA, NIST, engineers, us debunkers as paid agents (
) , the President/VP/Jews/Zionists/German intelligence agencies, OBL, and that is just what I can recall off the top of my head right now, well then yes, it is obvious the conspiracy theorists only way to keep their nonsense alive, is to paint any opposing voice, facts, professionals, etc that goes against their religion, I mean, beliefs, they are immediately secret agents paid for by the NWO/Illuminotti/Zionists/Jews/Mickey Mouse Club, for world domination and subjugation of the human race, and the take over by (insert favorite boogieman here). So yes, it is a FACT that the CTs need an army of sinister ninja stealth secret agents to cover all of the above mentioned items and things.

Hell, just amount of stealth secret ninja demo crews needed to rig up the WTC Towers and a burning WTC7 without a soul noticing would have been a large sum, not even mentioning the Pentagon and Shanksville.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



The data NIST's work is based on is available to the public.

This isn't true. NIST have refused to release the parameters for their computer simulations for WTC7 because, according to them, it would 'jeopardize public safety'. You can see it here.



Ignoring this evidence does not make it go away .

So you keep saying, but we have yet to see any objective rational, or observational proof of this assertion. Seriously, how can I possibly ignore evidence that nobody has presented in the first place? What evidence have NIST provided to support their theory of a fire-induced collapse for WTC7 aside from computer simulations? Please, tell me. The only evidence that I ever hear about is the penthouse collapse, which ironically, supports a controlled demolition, although apart from that, I haven't heard anything else. What evidence? Give us something.



Thats your opinion. Since you are a laymen on the subject its worth nothing

Oh really? Because I'm a layman all my arguments are therefore automatically rendered null and void? If you say so, PLB. But of course, I can only speculate as to how the NIST's modellers might explain away this fundamental physical anomaly of why the collapse of WTC7 does not look like the collapse in their models. They hold all the cards and are playing them very close to their chests. In my view that is a very good way to play the games of poker and power-politics but it is a very bad way to play the game of science. At the end of the day though we are left with NIST still not having substantiated its claims for its claims with reasoned argument or real evidence and therefore, as a conscientious scientific sceptic, I am obliged not to accept them.



Then why say my response is delirious? Did that add anything positive to your post?

Saying that I thought you sounded delirious is not name-calling.



Which papers? I already asked this, and I am curious.

Haven't I already named them? Here's one to get your chops around: 'MOMENTUM TRANSFER ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC1' -- Gordon Ross. Enjoy!



I call b.s. on this. Scientists are trained not to question certain things and truthers are? You have no clue of what is going on at NIST or universities around the world. I do, as I studied at one.

You studied at a university? Gosh. Life is full of surprises, isn't it? And there was me thinking you were a high-school dro... never-mind.



So what counts as proof? I have enough evidence that points to the fact fire did it. 100% conclusive proof does not exist.

Logical proofs are as possible in science as they are in any other field of enquiry or determination to which logic can be applied. It is only absolute proofs that are not available from science. But relative proofs are. Those are invariably contextual and so long as the context in which they are sought is specified they can be obtained in principle. In practice it is a matter of proving something beyond reasonable doubt and in the case of NIST's hypothesis the fact remains that this has not been done. You say that you have enough evidence, but why haven't you presented any of it yet? Why keep us sitting on the edge of our seats in anticipation waiting for this 'evidence' that you have yet to show us that cuts through the matter decisively?



You are showing sings of grandeur. Both you and me lack the education to "think for ourselves" on subjects like these. I rely on experts on many things.

No I don't. I just need to know the truth for myself first before choosing to believe in something and that usually entails doing an arduous amount of research. Your argument essentially comes down to this: 'I believe NIST because they are the experts'. Your whole case rests on the presumed authority of certain defined "experts" who purport to believe in a fire-collapse and whose assertions you require to be treated as sacrosanct. This supine dependency on the expressed personal opinions of selected expert authorities is the reason for my calling the OS belief-system an authoritarian cult a while back. When people are expected to believe something, not because they can see for themselves that it is so but just because some special group of appointed "experts" say it is so, then that is an authoritarian cult by any reliable dictionary's definitions of the terms.


It is not to answer the questions of truthers. It was to find out what caused collapse so it can be prevented in the future.

But PLB, they haven't explained the total collapses, have they? That's the point. *Smacks forehead* Seriously, I'd probably get further talking to a brick-wall.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The NIST report does not explain the collapse of the towers, it provides an hypothesis for collapse initiation.

In all that text it comes down to 'sagging trusses pulled in the columns'.

Something that has not been demonstrated as possible. Until it is the NIST report will remain an hypothesis, not fact, not even a theory.




top topics



 
9
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join