Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11[W:371, 640]

[Fledermaus]

Polly wanna FBI report?

Well, let's see where we are here. You cannot produce any evidence or cite anything at all that would show that the FBI tested for explosives residue or the methods they used for said testing or the results of said testing. And now you are asking me to just believe like you do. Sorry, but I happen to view that kind of childish faith in the unseen as a very poor substitute for proof.

What I see here is you trying to turn your failure to produce evidence to back up one of your claims into others' failure. But that only works in your mind. You might want to think about writing the FBI and asking them for something to get you out of this unfortunate bind you've gotten yourself into. After all, they're the ones who technically got you into it due to your unquestioning faith in them.

The FBI stated they tested.

You refuse to state whether or not they lied.

So, we have the FBI stating they tested. And a "TRUTHER" providing nothing more than incredulity. Hmmmmm. Who to choose?

I vote FBI since they are fr less likely to lie than a "TRUTHER" is likely to be wrong.

 

[Sadling]

The FBI stated they tested.

You refuse to state whether or not they lied.

So, we have the FBI stating they tested. And a "TRUTHER" providing nothing more than incredulity. Hmmmmm. Who to choose?

I vote FBI since they are fr less likely to lie than a "TRUTHER" is likely to be wrong.

You made the claim that the FBI tested for explosives residue. In response, I, and others, have asked you to back up your claim. But you failed to do so, and instead, showed a web page upon which someone from the FBI said that they tested for bombs. But you weren't asked to produce a declaration from the FBI. You were asked to provide something that would show what tests were performed and what the results of those tests were. It's too bad for you that you can't find anything to show what was asked of you.

There is no doubt that the FBI made the claim. There is also no doubt that they failed to show anything beyond a claim. And now you wish to push the idea that the notion of the FBI being deceptive and not forthcoming is too incredible to entertain. But the fact is that you cannot produce anything to support your claim.

 

[Mark F]

You made the claim that the FBI tested for explosives residue. In response, I, and others, have asked you to back up your claim. But you failed to do so, and instead, showed a web page upon which someone from the FBI said that they tested for bombs. But you weren't asked to produce a declaration from the FBI. You were asked to provide something that would show what tests were performed and what the results of those tests were. It's too bad for you that you can't find anything to show what was asked of you.

There is no doubt that the FBI made the claim. There is also no doubt that they failed to show anything beyond a claim. And now you wish to push the idea that the notion of the FBI being deceptive and not forthcoming is too incredible to entertain. But the fact is that you cannot produce anything to support your claim.

Since 9/11 is still an open case there is very much material that is still held in evidence and therefore, not available to the public. It is entirely possible the specific details of these tests are not available to the public but possibly could be obtained via FOIA request.

All of this ignores the Elephant in the room - that to date there is no plausible hypothesis for the use of explosives AND the events of that day can all be explained by aircraft impact and fire.

 

[ozeco41]

...All of this ignores the Elephant in the room - that to date there is no plausible hypothesis for the use of explosives AND the events of that day can all be explained by aircraft impact and fire.

Don't forget - specific to this thread - the nonsense of the "truther meme" that free fall is somehow indicative of or proof of CD.

It isn't. Free fall is a feature of a collapse mechanism NOT of what initiated the collapse.

 

[ozeco41]

The FBI stated they tested.

You refuse to state whether or not they lied.

Whether they tested or not does not change reality of what happened on 9/11.

Whether they lied or not likewise does not change historic fact.

There was no CD using explosives or any other agent. There has never been a plausible hypothesis requiring or proving CD. And even if there had been efforts made at CD they would have been redundant. The mechanisms for failure and collapse were sufficient without needing CD.

 

[Mark F]

Whether they tested or not does not change reality of what happened on 9/11.

Whether they lied or not likewise does not change historic fact.

There was no CD using explosives or any other agent. There has never been a plausible hypothesis requiring or proving CD. And even if there had been efforts made at CD they would have been redundant. The mechanisms for failure and collapse were sufficient without needing CD.

Further, even if some evidence of explosive residue were found, it would still not prove CD. The terrorists for example might have smuggled bombs aboard the planes.

 

[ozeco41]

Further, even if some evidence of explosive residue were found, it would still not prove CD. The terrorists for example might have smuggled bombs aboard the planes.

Yes. It's the same situation with the "thermXte in the dust" nonsense. Sure the claim is false but it wouldn't matter if it was true. It wouldn't prove anything about CD even if there were 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at ground zero. There was no CD. Has never been a plausible hypothesis for CD.

And we should resist the practice of playing along with truther style "arse about logic" - whether starting from their desired conclusion OR starting from an anomalous detail bereft of context or reasoning.

Still, if we waited for a truther to put forward a reasoned claim, it would be a long wait and these forums would have little traffic.

 

[Sadling]

It wouldn't prove anything about CD even if there were 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at ground zero.

That may well be the best example of one's own blindness to their own congitive dissonance that I've ever seen!

 

[Sadling]

Further, even if some evidence of explosive residue were found, it would still not prove CD. The terrorists for example might have smuggled bombs aboard the planes.

That comes close to being the best example of one's own blindness to their own congitive dissonance that I've ever seen!

 

[Sadling]

Since 9/11 is still an open case there is very much material that is still held in evidence and therefore, not available to the public. It is entirely possible the specific details of these tests are not available to the public but possibly could be obtained via FOIA request.

And why exactly would the specific details of the tests performed concerning explosives residue not be available to the public? A matter of national security? What?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Since 9/11 is still an open case there is very much material that is still held in evidence and therefore, not available to the public. It is entirely possible the specific details of these tests are not available to the public but possibly could be obtained via FOIA request.

All of this ignores the Elephant in the room - that to date there is no plausible hypothesis for the use of explosives AND the events of that day can all be explained by aircraft impact and fire.

yeh there is that big elephant in the room for anyone who thinks that explosives were not plausible. LOL

This is from your video mark LOL

 

[KokomoJojo]

Meanwhile back on the central focus of the topic.

Isn't it abut time we showed yet again why:
1) Free-fall MUST and ONLY means CD is FALSE;
2) Free-fall is a consequence of the collapse mechanism - not what initiated the mechanism;
3) CD is merely another initiator;
4) THEREFORE Free-fall cannot distinguish CD initiation from any other including so-called "natural initiation" by unfought fires.

5) And the handful of other false "Truther memes' which flow from those.

1) yes show us how all supporting structure majocally gets removed without explosives.

2) who would argue this? Since explosive cutters are in fact collapse mechanisms

3) yes it is.

4) yes we can

5) Yes it does

You do not know the difference between a freefall condition and a natural collapse apparently.

Even NIST sundar admits that the main supporting structure must be removed for a freefall condition to occur.

However there is even a greater issue. Not only did it freefall but all the buildings were subjected to asymmetrical damage and magically fell symmetrically. Do you know what that means in demolition terms?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Yes. It's the same situation with the "thermXte in the dust" nonsense. Sure the claim is false but it wouldn't matter if it was true. It wouldn't prove anything about CD even if there were 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at ground zero. There was no CD. Has never been a plausible hypothesis for CD.

And we should resist the practice of playing along with truther style "arse about logic" - whether starting from their desired conclusion OR starting from an anomalous detail bereft of context or reasoning.

Still, if we waited for a truther to put forward a reasoned claim, it would be a long wait and these forums would have little traffic.

WOW, now thats cruisin da nile in style with a front row seat!

Why would we want reasonable claims when we have a boat load of debunker comedy central unreasonable claims to keep us entertained.

debunker logic:

1) yes + yes = no

2) if yes + yes = yes then it does not matter.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The FBI stated they tested.

You refuse to state whether or not they lied.

So, we have the FBI stating they tested. And a "TRUTHER" providing nothing more than incredulity. Hmmmmm. Who to choose?

I vote FBI since they are fr less likely to lie than a "TRUTHER" is likely to be wrong.

Oh yeh? The FBI?

 

[Bodi]

Dude... some of you need to get a frickin' life.

 

[Mark F]

And why exactly would the specific details of the tests performed concerning explosives residue not be available to the public? A matter of national security? What?

Is there something about evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation that is incomprehensible to you?

I already gave you all the clues you need to get this information if you so desperately need it. Have at it then.

 

[Mark F]

That may well be the best example of one's own blindness to their own congitive dissonance that I've ever seen!

Please explain

 

[Sadling]

Is there something about evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation that is incomprehensible to you?

I already gave you all the clues you need to get this information if you so desperately need it. Have at it then.

My question to you was why the results of the tests performed concerning explosives residue is not available to the public? How would that specific disclosure affect an ongoing criminal investigation? And how long has this investigation been going on, anyway? And what aspect of the crime is still being investigated?

And I'm not the one who deperately needs information concerning the FBI's explosives residue tests . Another poster claimed that the FBI tested for explosives residue. He was asked to provide something with which to support that claim. He is the desperate one who should take your advice on how to possibly get the information he needs to make his point.

 

[Sadling]

Dude... some of you need to get a frickin' life.

What are you doing in this thread?

 

[Mark F]

My question to you was why the results of the tests performed concerning explosives residue is not available to the public? How would that specific disclosure affect an ongoing criminal investigation? And how long has this investigation been going on, anyway? And what aspect of the crime is still being investigated?

And I'm not the one who deperately needs information concerning the FBI's explosives residue tests . Another poster claimed that the FBI tested for explosives residue. He was asked to provide something with which to support that claim. He is the desperate one who should take your advice on how to possibly get the information he needs to make his point.

File an FOIA. As long as the case remains open they aren't going to release anything unless asked to.

This is all irrelevant anyway as there was no CD and no plausible case for the use of explosives has EVER been presented. Just another distraction, another chase down rabbit holes.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Please stick to discussing the OP. Avoid mocking or baiting other posters.

 

[Sadling]

File an FOIA. As long as the case remains open they aren't going to release anything unless asked to.

This is all irrelevant anyway as there was no CD and no plausible case for the use of explosives has EVER been presented. Just another distraction, another chase down rabbit holes.

But I'm not the one who decided to use the FBI as proof that tests for explosives residue were performed. Someone else did. If they don't care to do what it takes to prove their case--file a FOIA--that's hardly my problem. Plus, you neglected to answer my question concerning how long this investigation has been going on, what aspect of the crime is still being investigated, and why a disclosure of the results of the explosives residue tests would be a detriment to the investigation?

When someone produces the results of the FBI's testing for explosives residue, then you can claim that there is no plausible case for the use of explosives. Until then, you are free to dismiss or otherwise disregard the fact that buildings don't collapse in the manner which was observed--at near freefall speed through the course of most resistance while ejecting steel beams horizontally, and not toppling through the entire one thousand foot collapse despite asymmetrical damage.

 

[Mark F]

But I'm not the one who decided to use the FBI as proof that tests for explosives residue were performed. Someone else did. If they don't care to do what it takes to prove their case--file a FOIA--that's hardly my problem. Plus, you neglected to answer my question concerning how long this investigation has been going on, what aspect of the crime is still being investigated, and why a disclosure of the results of the explosives residue tests would be a detriment to the investigation?

When someone produces the results of the FBI's testing for explosives residue, then you can claim that there is no plausible case for the use of explosives. Until then, you are free to dismiss or otherwise disregard the fact that buildings don't collapse in the manner which was observed--at near freefall speed through the course of most resistance while ejecting steel beams horizontally, and not toppling through the entire one thousand foot collapse despite asymmetrical damage.

I probably ignored your question about how long this investigation has been going on since IT IS BLEEDING OBVIOUS IT STARTED ON 9/11/2001!!!!!!

The null hypothesis is no explosives. No plausible case for explosives exists. No physical evidence for explosives recovered by anyone. FBI says tests for explosives negative. There was no CD. Prima facie there were no explosives. No compelling reason to dig further. If you MUST dig further, if you have some desperate desire to keep looking for the shooter in a stabbing investigation that is on you. Rational people need not waste their time. If you are too lazy to dig further that is your problem. As the one pushing the case for explosives that burden of proof is yours.

 

[Sadling]

IT IS BLEEDING OBVIOUS IT STARTED ON 9/11/2001!!!!!!

FBI says tests for explosives negative.

What aspect of the crime is still being investigated, Mark? Any idea?

Could you provide me with a link where the FBI states that the tests for explosives residue proved negative?

Big explosions, Mark, coming from the WTC that could be heard from over a mile away. Doesn't mean anything . . .

 

[mike2810]

The topic of CD has been debated, discussed, etc for over 12+ years. What's new? It seems the discussion goes in circles.

Do buildings collapsing make any sound?
Does a "explosiion" = controlled demolition?
Why do some feel that all information regarding 9/11 should be made public? Do they believe that for all investigations?

NIST explained why not testing for explosives. Some reject the answer. IMO, it is a valid explanation.