• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AI agrees WTC7 was a controlled demolition!

Lord of Planar said:
Wow.

That report came out more than twenty years ago. I really do not care what you believe. I have no desire to rehash it. I never thought you to be a CT nut, but here we are.
Click to expand...
And yet you posted in this thread? Why if you dont want to discuss it? Just to complain about other people discussing it? Lame
 
NOLA Dude said:
And yet you posted in this thread? Why if you dont want to discuss it? Just to complain about other people discussing it? Lame
Click to expand...
To see who the nuts are.

Like I said in post 29:

The NIST report those years back was plenty thorough in its explanation. Anyone thinking this was some false flag operation need to pull up that document and explain the areas it is incorrect.​
​
Without such proper scientific rebuttal, this is all a joke.​
​
Be my guest. Show us what is wrong in the NIST report.
 
imo, Gage and AE911T is about as creditable as those who support the idea the 2020 election was stolen/rigged from Trump.
A lot of theories with no real evidence to back up the theory.

- Can controlled demolition bring a building down? Of course, when planned and done correctly.
- Is that what happened to WTC 7? Let me ask, was Gage involved in the original investigation of the collapse or is he just using data from reports to support his conclusion?
- Even the Alaska un report (Hulsey) on the WTC7 has its problems and skeptics
Alaska report
fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com

Built to Last or Built to Fail? The contested causes of WTC 7’s collapse and implications for structural firefighting strategies

To this day, its data has been withheld from peer review and public scrutiny, in the interests of “public safety.” The computer modelling was used to
fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com


Problems with the Hulsey paper
www.metabunk.org

Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire

This thread was to discuss the 2017 presentation by Hulsey, and has been superseded by the publication of the draft report, discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.t10890/ The Claim Being Debunked Here In a Sept 8 2017 article...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

www.metabunk.org

AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project

www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org
 
NOLA Dude said:
I have no interest in discussing something who wants to do this.
Click to expand...
So you are unwilling to open up the NIST report and tell us how it is wrong.

OK...

Stay the good little conspiracy theorist.
 
NOLA Dude said:
I have no interest in discussing something who wants to do this.
Click to expand...
Before anyone will believe you except other CT'ers, you need to explain how the report is wrong.

I will lay odds, you never read the NIST report.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Before anyone will believe you except other CT'ers, you need to explain how the report is wrong.

I will lay odds, you never read it.
Click to expand...
and he needs to explain why Husley report is correct.
The computer model has been shown to have flaws in some of its assumptions.
 
A search of the CT forum you will find that the Husley report and other related topics to the WTC7 has been discussed in the past.

What is interesting is how the AE911T group have gone from
controlled demolition with conventional explosives
CD with thermite
CD with Nanothermite
conventional nukes
tactical nukes
mini neutron bombs.
energy beam weapons
All based on the fact that the towers and WTC7 collapsed after being hit by jets, or resulting falling debris and fires.
The CT go with the conclusion the collapse looks like a CD, therefore it must be without any real supporting evidence of CD.

G

Post in thread 'WTC 7 Collapse - UAF - Draft Report Presentation'


It might be worth googling the first name there as an example to see who she worked for while you can still edit this.
Therese P. McAllister

Search results for query: WTC 7

debatepolitics.com
 
Sure.
 
Bum said:
Sure.
Click to expand...
You have to remember how AI works on the net. Conspiracy theories are very prominent, wheres rational people waited for what the official reports said. AI uses the majority ideas of consensus, rather than tangible facts.
 
I bet chemtrails did it.
 
Reactions: Bum
NOLA Dude said:
And yet you posted in this thread? Why if you dont want to discuss it? Just to complain about other people discussing it? Lame
Click to expand...

I would like to discuss with you why you believe Gage/Hulsey is correct in that WTC7 was taken down by controlled demolition.

You ready to show why you accept the CD theory?
 
Well, just to be sort of thorough at my end, I decided to take a look at Professor Wiki and this is interesting:


That bit about the power substation was something I had not had placed before me the few times in the past when I gave any of this further thought, after maybe the first few months after the whole series of events of that day.

Even though it seems likely the best of the best of the proper investigators are concluding that we can set aside such like what the OP is offering here, there are a couple oddities just in those two paragraphs above.

Sorry about the weird link stuff in that quote box up there. I don't usually use this unit to access this site and am not sure if I can adjust that to be less troublesome, but here is that other necessary link:

7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
Years back a poster here linked a video of one of the WTC impacts. It was some random hallway security camera that happened to have a view of the WTC through a window at the end of the hall. A 2001-era digital black and white camera. Low frame rate, low resolution, its job was to look at this one door. It wasn't exactly built to resolve an object a couple miles away moving 500 miles an hour. The result was just a blob of grey pixels flying towards the building, you couldn't even tell it was an airplane.

Despite plenty of footage available of an airplane, this poster took it as proof that an X-ray laser cannon ball was fired at the WTC. Famously visible, those X-rays. And oddly slow, for photons.
 
Show me the prompts. ChatGPT can be coerced into writing just about anything.
 
"AI agrees," lol.

It is literally called "AI hallucination," large language models and data lake technology (structured and unstructured data) creates an occasional phenomenon where the output is misleading or false even if presented as generative and coherent.

Most AI platforms are waiting for responses asking the model to tell us where or how it obtained a conclusion and it will respond with "speculation" masquerading as "reasoning."

You feed the right prompts into an AI model and you can force misleading or false conclusions.
 
By data lake technologies, do you mean the common setup of parquet or iceberg formatted data files with a programmable sql like compute engine to perform operations on data? (For example, BigQuery or DataBricks?)
 

What I love is the simple fact that the experts who are quoted are never experts in demolition, or explosives, or have any experience with them.

Let’s begin with the simple. Explosives don’t explode. They burn. They burn really fast. They create a shock wave and heat wave from the unbelievably fast burn. So fast it is nearly, nearly, instantaneous.

So if explosives had been in the towers that were struck by the planes to cause the collapse, they would have burned long before the order to detonate was given. There wouldn’t be anything left to detonate.

Second. There are two ways to detonate explosives. Call it what we did in the Army. Electric and Non Electric. Electric is just like it sounds. A pulse of electricity travels down a wire setting off a blasting cap and then the boom. Non electric is time fuse, or canon fuse for civilians. This burns slowly down to a blasting cap that goes boom.

Electric is very dangerous. The wires can sometimes pick up radio waves and build up an electrical charge that goes boom when you don’t want it to. If the wires are broken or improperly insulated static electricity can set off the charge. Wait. It gets worse.

If you want to use something like a cell phone to detonate each individual charge you have to make sure that some salesman doesn’t call randomly hoping to talk you into a timeshare.

I mentioned radio waves being dangerous. In the real world we would bar radios anywhere near electric firing setups. We would finish wiring it and then move quickly away before something went wrong. On 9-11 every cop in the city was on his radio. Every fireman was on the radio. Emergency management. Red Cross. Reporters and news vans. Everyone with a cell phone. There was enough radio going on that it probably could have gotten popcorn to going.

Way too dangerous for electric.

Oh my, there is so much more.

Explosives take time to rig. I think someone would have noticed fifty guys working on the skeleton of the towers for a few weeks or months before. Especially if they were cutting supports to weaken them.

When the plane hit the building shrapnel flew across three floors or more. That shrapnel ripped the interior walls to shreds and blew out the backside of the building. It certainly would have decimated any initiation system for explosives.

I think we covered why it wasn’t explosives.
 
Now to the melting steel. You don’t have to melt it. You need to weaken it and that can be done easily with wood fires contained in an oven line setting.

Metal reacts to temperature. It expands and gets soft when it is hot. Picture the blacksmith banging at horseshoes. In the Civil War they would take rail road rails and heat them over a wood fire and wrap them around trees to keep them brim being used to repair rail lines. So yes, you can weaken steel with a wood fire.

When the planes hit the towers they took out a number of vertical supports. This meant the weight those supports had been holding was now distributed to the others. The others were now holding a lot more than intended. They held, for a while, and as fire weakened the Truss Floor Beams, those started to fail.

The remaining supports now had even more weight to support. Eventually the failed supports had put so much on the remaining that it began to fail. As each floor fell, it overwhelmed the next floor, and even more weight was dropping.

Do an experiment at home. Go to a lumberyard and get some trim wood. Some one by two. Lay it out supported at the ends. Place a hammer on the wood. It holds the hammer fine. Drop the hammer from a dozen feet and the hammer blows right through. Kinetic energy is an unforgiving force. Nobody sabotaged the wood. Math won as it always does.

As the building collapsed hundreds of tons were moving downward rapidly. As each floor got hit, it joined in the mass headed down. Gravity is an equal opportunity thing. It sucks everything.

After an earthquake there are buildings with cracks and other damage running through them. Tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete slammed into the earth as each tower collapsed.

Seismographs hundreds of miles away recorded the event.

So Building 7 was subjected to two geological shock events. I would have been flabbergasted if it had not suffered some damage from that.
 

It's a ****ing language model, not the Oracle of Delphi. It gave you, via statistical analysis of language, what you wanted to hear, not the truth, in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
Senator Johnson questioned why Building 7 which was not hit by a plane collapsed in a way that was consistent with controlled demolitions. This is a distinct issue from the Twin Towers because it involves a building that experienced no direct impact but still fell symmetrically and rapidly. The presence of molten steel reported explosions by witnesses like Barry Jennings & the rapid debris removal all raise questions about the official narrative.

The presence of molten steel in the debris is not easily explained by office fires or jet fuel alone. Experts like Niels Harrit have identified residues of nanothermite in the dust which is a military grade explosive material capable of cutting through steel at high temperatures. This evidence suggests alternative mechanisms beyond conventional explosives or fire.

Barry Jennings (who was a key witness) reported explosions in Building 7 before its collapse which matches with accounts from multiple first responders. These testimonies combined with the structural anomalies and the lack of a thorough investigation due to rapid debris removal show that questions remain unanswered.

While you mention that the quoted experts aren't demolition specialists, the concerns they raise are supported by structural engineers, physicists, & other professionals within their fields. The dismissal of these questions without a comprehensive reexamination doesnt cut it.
 

Do you know the elements of Thermite? Iron oxide and aluminum. Rusty metal and aluminum. Nano Thermite can be added to other explosive compounds.

Thermite is not an explosive. It is an incendiary device. It doesn’t explode. It burns hot. Added to other explosives it can increase the heat generated and increase the speed of the explosion. But if it was used that way the residue would still show explosive residue.

Now. Explosives in this terminology are TNT, Composition B, C-4, or perhaps RDX. These leave residues that are not only visible, but easily quantified. An example. C-4 leaves white residue when it detonates. I blew up a lot of C-4 in the army.

The Aluminum in your drink can, burns. It is flammable when exposed to sufficient heat. The Brits discovered this to their sorrow when their Aluminum warships burned like hell in the Falkland campaign. That is why warships are not made from it anymore.

I’d be surprised if there was no residue of burned Aluminum in the aftermath of a fire given its prevalence in our world. The same of Burned Iron Oxide. Steel rusts. It does that. It is common.

If these saboteurs had used explosives there would be residue you couldn’t ignore. You would see it with the unaided eye. Every military person who ever worked with it would notice it immediately. It might as well be a neon sign.
 
I get where you're coming from with the thermite and explosive residues thing, but you're missing the bigger picture. Senator Johnson isn't just talking about regular thermite. He's talking about nanothermite, which is a whole different beast. It's not just iron oxide and aluminum, it's nanoscale particles that react super fast and can cut through steel like butter. Experts like Niels Harrit found residues of this stuff in the WTC dust, and that's not something you see from a regular fire or even conventional explosives.

You’re right that explosives like C-4 leave obvious residues, but nanothermite leaves its own unique markers. It's not just about burning aluminum or rusty steel. It's about a controlled reaction that was clearly present in the debris. And let's not forget this isn't just about the Twin Towers. Building 7 is the real head scratcher. It wasn't hit by a plane, yet it collapsed like a textbook demolition.

Witnesses like Barry Jennings heard explosions before it went down, and the way it fell just doesn't add up with the official story. The rapid cleanup of the site also stopped us from getting a full picture, which is a huge red flag. It's not just military guys who noticed this stuff. Structural engineers and physicists have been raising these questions too.

Your points about conventional explosives are valid, but they don't really address the specific evidence of nanothermite and the weird stuff that happened with Building 7. We need to look at all the pieces, not just dismiss it because it doesn't fit the usual narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.