• 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!

So NIST lied about the failure mechanism of WTC 7 in the 911 Official Report?

mike2810 said:
So are Jones, et.al disinfo agents?
How about Prager?
Koko, seems to think these alternative explanations are coming from the govt. as disinfo.
Click to expand...

I doubt we will ever know for sure, but it certainly APPEARS that Jones could be a disinformation agent.

Prager is a disinformation agent in the same way Assange or Snowden or Manning are disinfo agents. ;)

That is, he's not. He is a clear-headed and patriotic rational thinker and analyst, rather like Sherlock Holmes.
 
CATiwampus said:
The explosions precede the "collapse" and are consistent with CD.
Click to expand...

Yeah by hours not seconds, which means they are unrelated to the collapse. And again, there are prosaic explanations for the sounds of explosions that have nothing to do with bombs which combined with the total lack of any credible evidence of bombs, no plausible motive, no plausible means and no plausible opportunity = no bombs.
 
Mark F said:
Yeah by hours not seconds, which means they are unrelated to the collapse. And again, there are prosaic explanations for the sounds of explosions that have nothing to do with bombs which combined with the total lack of any credible evidence of bombs, no plausible motive, no plausible means and no plausible opportunity = no bombs.
Click to expand...

Obviously you did not view the video that I linked to under EVIDENCE.

Thank you very much.
 
CATiwampus said:
Obviously you did not view the video that I linked to under EVIDENCE.

Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

There is nothing new in that video which I have seen many, many times before. I have also seen the unedited version of many of film clips they used. The video is a propaganda hatchet job assembled to push a particular agenda. And it is also oddly contradictory since the folks who made it think Thermite was used to bring down the buildings, not explosives.

I note you did not answer my post from last night comparing an actual known CD to the collapse of 7 WTC. Why is that?
 
Mark F said:
There is nothing new in that video which I have seen many, many times before. I have also seen the unedited version of many of film clips they used. The video is a propaganda hatchet job assembled to push a particular agenda. And it is also oddly contradictory since the folks who made it think Thermite was used to bring down the buildings, not explosives.

I note you did not answer my post from last night comparing an actual known CD to the collapse of 7 WTC. Why is that?
Click to expand...

The explosive sounds in the video are in advance of the "collapse" by a matter of seconds.
also there is the possibility that thermite was used in addition to explosives.
 
CATiwampus said:
The explosive sounds in the video are in advance of the "collapse" by a matter of seconds.
also there is the possibility that thermite was used in addition to explosives.
Click to expand...

You do know what an actual demolition explosion sounds like, yes? I provided examples yesterday. How does that compare to the low rumbling of a collapsing building interior on your video?

Why would thermite be used in addition to explosives?
Why would thermite be used at all? The stuff is pretty much hopeless for toppling steel structures.
Why use explosives even? No one has yet given a plausible motive for blowing up an unknown and unimportant minor office tower.
How do you explain the obvious evidence of imminent natural collapse witnessed earlier in the day - the creaking and moaning of the structure, how it was starting to lean and a bulge had developed on one side? How does that fit with CD?
 
Even Harriet who says he found thermite in the dust sample stated it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the stuff he found to produce the visual results seen on 911.

How was that much thermite brought into the wtc? How many man hours to apply that much thermite (paint)?

If one wishes to go down the CD road and the use of thermite, one needs to provide as much detail as possible.
 
mike2810 said:
Even Harriet who says he found thermite in the dust sample stated it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the stuff he found to produce the visual results seen on 911.

How was that much thermite brought into the wtc? How many man hours to apply that much thermite (paint)?

If one wishes to go down the CD road and the use of thermite, one needs to provide as much detail as possible.
Click to expand...

It is worth pointing out too - though I'm sure it has been - that even if one believes Harrit/Jones found Thermite and not paint chips all that proves is they found Thermite. That does not prove it was used to bring down anything. That requires a further step in the evidentiary process. Someone for example could have been storing crates of the stuff in one or more of the towers. In the one instance I am aware of where Thermite was used to bring down a steel structure it required 750 pounds of Thermite per column. That in turn necessitated building huge steel boxes around each column to contain the Thermite.

Methinks someone would have noticed that.

Harrit's estimate of thousands of tons of the stuff being needed - railcars full - is almost certainly accurate. But when you contemplate that you realize how silly the idea is.
 
Mark F said:
Yes but none of the "sounds of explosions" reported by witnesses coincide with the collapse of 7 WTC, therefore they can not be responsible for initiating its destruction.

Timing is everything.

Also as pointed out many times there are many prosaic explanations for the sound of explosions in a massive catastrophic event such as the 9/11 attacks. Explosions do not mean bombs. You need to do much, much better than vague anecdotal reports hours removed from the actual event.
Click to expand...

yes they do mean bombs unless you want to make a case for blowing it up with transformers.



typical debunker trash.

It looks like a duck smells like a duck quacks like a duck but ask a debunker, its really a ostrich
 
Mark F said:
It is worth pointing out too - though I'm sure it has been - that even if one believes Harrit/Jones found Thermite and not paint chips all that proves is they found Thermite. That does not prove it was used to bring down anything. That requires a further step in the evidentiary process. Someone for example could have been storing crates of the stuff in one or more of the towers. In the one instance I am aware of where Thermite was used to bring down a steel structure it required 750 pounds of Thermite per column. That in turn necessitated building huge steel boxes around each column to contain the Thermite.

Methinks someone would have noticed that.

Harrit's estimate of thousands of tons of the stuff being needed - railcars full - is almost certainly accurate. But when you contemplate that you realize how silly the idea is.
Click to expand...

do you look into everyones shipments and mail?

Its illegal you know.
 
KokomoJojo said:
now there is a question for the record books!

Something that explodes! LOL
Click to expand...

Like airplanes, computers, etc.

Thanks for providing conformation that the jet/damage/fire caused the collapse
:lamo


Typical Truther. Non commital on your part.
 
KokomoJojo said:
yes they do mean bombs unless you want to make a case for blowing it up with transformers.



typical debunker trash.

It looks like a duck smells like a duck quacks like a duck but ask a debunker, its really a ostrich
Click to expand...


again [emphasis added]
 
Sunzi said:
Not one 911 truth follower has read, or will comprehend NIST. And the real problem, there are no sane engineers who think WTC7 was CD.

What has 911 truth not lied about.

Why do 911 truth followers copy and paste woo as directed by their 911 truth handlers.
Click to expand...

I see you qualify your outburst exploiting the word "sane".
Using anti truther tactics, it's now up to you to prove each and every truther engineer has
been found clinically insane. Go ahead and post those reports and details. I'll check back late.
 
Mark F said:
That's OK, we found this obvious bit of one-sided propaganda wanting the first time. Thanks though.
Click to expand...

yhey I am not the one who is claiming the siding on a building falls independently of the structure its attached to! :failpail:
 
Sphere said:
I see you qualify your outburst exploiting the word "sane".
Using anti truther tactics, it's now up to you to prove each and every truther engineer has
been found clinically insane. Go ahead and post those reports and details. I'll check back late.
Click to expand...
I don't have to prove anything. I don't have fantasy claims, 911 truth failed engineers are making delusional claims; guess what that means? Delusional claims about 911 mean? Exactly. bingo

The people making the CD claims have to post the evidence. They can't, you can't, no one can. But feel free to be the first; you would be famous. Got anything? 911 truth has only lies base on nonsense.

There are no sane engineer who support 911 truth. A true statement until anyone can prove otherwise. Why, because based on physics and engineering there was no CD on 911. No thermite, no explosives were used to destroy the WTC. Why? Sadly for 911 truth there is no blast effect on 911, zero. As for thermite, it fuses iron to steel when used, and there was zero iron fused to steel on 911. There may of been copper, but check the melting point of Cu, etc.'

There is no evidence of thermite or explosive being used on 911. If you think otherwise, please produce the evidence; thus we can take that evidence and earn the biggest Pulitzer in history; go it? No. 911 truth has woo. 911 truth is fantasy and lies based on ignorance.

But feel free to produce some evidence. Hurry, 12 years and no evidence has been presented by 911 truth; if you have some it would be the first time in history.

We are where? In Conspiracy Theories. Big clue.
 
Ah, but you do have something to prove Sunzi. But you cannot prove it, and we all know it.

You cannot prove that story. No airplanes at Shanksville & Pentagon, impossible damage from "office furniture fires".

The official story--your story--falls apart quickly under even the most superficial scrutiny.
 
Henry David said:
Ah, but you do have something to prove Sunzi. But you cannot prove it, and we all know it.

You cannot prove that story. No airplanes at Shanksville & Pentagon, impossible damage from "office furniture fires".

The official story--your story--falls apart quickly under even the most superficial scrutiny.
Click to expand...

He can prove it, just no to YOU. To normal people who can think yes.
 
Mark F said:
He can prove it, just no to YOU. To normal people who can think yes.
Click to expand...

So, everybody who accepts the official story, is "NORMAL" and everybody who questions it is "ABNORMAL"
really?

You don't get it, in part because of an attitude problem.

do YOU really believe that the video of the "collapse" of WTC7 proves beyond a reasonable
doubt, that it was NOT controlled demolition?
 
CATiwampus said:
So, everybody who accepts the official story, is "NORMAL" and everybody who questions it is "ABNORMAL"
really?

You don't get it, in part because of an attitude problem.

do YOU really believe that the video of the "collapse" of WTC7 proves beyond a reasonable
doubt, that it was NOT controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

The video alone does not prove one explanation or another. It is the combination of all the known evidence, statements, etc.

What is your explantiion of the collapse of the wtc7? provide sources for your conclusions.
 
CATiwampus said:
So, everybody who accepts the official story, is "NORMAL" and everybody who questions it is "ABNORMAL"
really?

You don't get it, in part because of an attitude problem.

do YOU really believe that the video of the "collapse" of WTC7 proves beyond a reasonable
doubt, that it was NOT controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

The Oz hypothesis comes into play here.

And yes, I have watched all of the known videos of the collapse of 7 World Trade - but I don't rely on that alone. In addition I have watched probably hundreds of CD videos, AND I have studied much of the publicly available technical data, witness accounts, plus talked to engineers, people familiar with demolitions, etc. I not only find CD at 7 implausible, I find it laughable. Other than the building falling in the direction of gravity nothing about it says CD. No one has presented a plausible case for CD. There is no motive, no means, no opportunity and zero physical evidence. It is impossible to do a CD without leaving LOTS OF EVIDENCE behind.
 
The whole "bust the NIST for screwing up the Column 79 fiasco" is a distraction
from the REAL business at hand, and that is from the video of the "collapse" of WTC7
the ONLY conclusion that has anything going for it at all, is a controlled demolition.
Therefore, it is back to the one who first asserted that WTC7 fell as a result of fires,
to PROVE that indeed the structure could have fallen in the manner observed, without
any help from malicious human intervention.

So far, the NIST has proved nothing, and the whole debate about Column 79 is a smokescreen.
Lets get to the main event here, why is it that the fundamental data isn't being considered in
evidence, that is the video of the falling building? This is truly amazing that the mainstream
media has been able to steer public perception away from examining the very bit that would
show beyond any doubt that WTC7 was intentionally destroyed not simply a victim of "office fires".
 
One possible explanation of wtc7 collapse

The loss of one or more columns may have caused the collapse.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

The authors of this paper published in nov 2007.

After 12+ years what alternative explanation has been published with the details that truthers want? Oh wait, they don't seem to care about details in there explanations. Details are required for any explanation that disagrees with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom