So a video where fire fighters describe “explosions” means there were bombs?

Really? How would you describe the sounds, pressures,vibration, dust and smells of a large building collapsing all around you?

At no point do they say “a bomb went off and the building collapsed”.

It’s also a well known phenomena that eye witness accounts to dramatic incidents are highly un-reliable. Confusion on the ground is rife. After the event, it’s easy, with the benefit of collation and hindsight to say “oh yeah, a plane flew into the building and it fell down” but i bet if you were in it at the time, an weren’t looking out the window to see the approaching plane you’d not have a clue what had occured.

Anyone who thinks a video of some firefighters describing a build collapsing as “an explosion” and somehow gets to “a bomb was deliberately set off” is a moron.

I suppose if they’re all on this thread, then at least the rest of the forum is safe, right?

Is this thread a STW conspiracy?

I watched the Towers fall, live on telly, then over and over again in the news reports that followed, and lots of stuff that got ejected sideways ended up coating a large part of Manhattan, it being vast amounts of loose paper, pulverised glass, concrete, insulation material, and human remains.
Powder, basically, which is now causing the inevitable health problems among all those who were covered in it and inhaled it.
There are also those objects that chose to jump…

Nah, he avoids any questions that might trap him into agreeing with something that is true and could undermine his conspiracy.

5:40 …more people who knew WT7 was about to collapse…

Did you hear that? Keep your eye on that building it will be coming down soon…

😆
Do you think that maybe they could hear the structure failing? Over some time, not instantly as in a controlled explosion?

Large structures make noise as they fatigue.
Fatigue perhaps caused by fire.
*Fire that didn’t set off any explosives prematurely, and didn’t burn through any wires used in the detonation of said imaginary explosives.

This is your proof? 😆

Pulling the building?
You mean pulling your men from the building. This context makes sense in every batshit video you link to, demolishing the building does not.

Get a new hobby.

*I have professional experience in the use of explosives. You don’t.

Yeah but no but yeah but no but

There is accepting as gospel and accepting that planes were seen flying into the towers and suggesting a mega conspiracy that involved professional demolition.

Perhaps more information could be released it would it disprove the facts above?

Yes properly, and listen to the answers and respect when people are more qualified to answer those questions.

The problem Ned as I see it is that people put genuine effort into trying to answer the questions only to be met with:
1) The threefish approach – Oh I can’t be bothered to engage any more I don’t have time (eg it looks like you are about to prove me wrong so I am going to piss off for a while and come back with my nut job bollocks later)
2) Or wilfull trolling a-la JHJ.

So sometimes other people get caught up in the frustrations of this, if you have and you are genuine then I am sorry. I would be happy to try and work through your objections and attend to the areas where you think it falls down (sic). It is hard to discern who wants to explore and who is just being mendacious.

eg CharlieMungus seems to be genuine, although it is important even to question that as some of his responses border on trolling/wilfulignoring.

What happens in these discussions is the tag team effect, one starts, their argument is dismissed, then another one takes over, usually with a similar but equally flawed point or points. There are only so many times the same argument can be discussed before people start getting frustrated and chucking shit at each other.

OK, fair enough, I’ve been careful to say most and some. There’ll be plenty on there who are straight of school and spent more time on pretty pictures and structural engineering.

They’re will be some who know exactly what they’re talking about. Or are you saying none of them? Are you in a position to address the key questions and requests for clarity they have put forward? Are they right to put them forward? Should they be answered by those they’re put to (NIST?)

tj. ours crossed.

Yes I am saying none of them.

I’ll try, happy to engage.

Yes/maybe if the questions are invalid or not based on the scientific method then no.

Depends, NIST have answered this many times over.
Saying that NIST haven’t answered them is wilfull trolling on the part of the truthers.

Ned go for it – put your questions. Ignore the insults, I will happily try and address as long as you are prepared to answer my questions? Fair enough?

Really? I haven’t wilfully ignored anyone. There have been a variety of genuine answers and ideas put forward by folk and others which are less rich and tinged with derision. I happily engage with the constructive discussions.

I’m not entirely sure where the trolling idea comes from, perhaps from Junkyard’s comment early in the thread. But let me assure you, neither here nor elsewhere am I trolling.

I’m just questioning to be sure that’s all Charlie. ..

Don’t foget the 5plusn8 ‘genuine’ approach. How would you describe that? Everyone else is a troll and wilfully ignorant, so when are you the same? Or do other people need to figure that out for you too?

You weren’t about to disprove anything I said yesterday, you were just selectively ignoring (what’s another term for that?) anything that supported a contradiction to your own view in order that you could wander off with me down some convoluted explanation of a totally different scenario which I might possibly have agreed with, so you could then have said “see!! That shows how how the NIST version is correct.”. It’s a fascinating control drama and I’m sure it serves you well in life, but it’s also borderline offensive.

My position is this: I don’t believe the three buildings came down because of natural collapse. It contradicts my understanding of physics and probability, especially WTC7. Nobody I’m aware of has ever been able to physically demonstrate an alternative to controlled demolition – plenty of maths and computer models (animations), not a single experiment. I want to be wrong. I don’t want to have to consider that there are people who would be involved in anything like this. But I’m not naive; the US has an authoritarian/corporate system(s) set up to profit – either fanancially, politically or ideologically – from any disaster.

Bickering about hypothesis is largely pointless; it’s virtually impossible now for anyone to prove anything, certainly not in the arena of an undisciplined forum ‘debate’. It’s a distraction from the observation of socio-political process, which is difficult enough at the best of times, and needs to be viewed as such. Who profited from 911 and how? Do we accept these people and these agendas as representative of our wishes for a society we are part of?

Now, if I may be excused, breakfast is finished so I’ll sack this/you off again and go and put a day’s work in doing something I love. You have a good one yourself…

so can any ogf the people who think there is more than the oficial story give me the one piece of evidence that shows this? I will then take that to piece if I can. so the one killer fact please

The frustration comes from people arguing with things phrases like “it looks strange” or “I don’t get how it could do X” and then instead of realising there might be a gap in knowledge and going to do some reading, picking up a text book, or doing some online classes (or even listening to other people) they leap to straight to “since I don’t understand it means the explanation is wrong and something nefarious happened”

And that’s not directed at any one person in particular, it’s a general trend and it’s difficult not to be generally frustrated even if specific people try to cut through it. If I have come across as derisory to anyone then I genuinely apologise for that unreservedly.

But even when it’s explained its “yeah but what about blah…”, forget blah you’re STILL starting from an assumption and working outwards from there.

Start with the observable bits, and then use knowledge to see if you can explain what happened. If you get to a bit you can’t explain then you’re either missing some knowledge, or some info (observation).

You’ll then have a list of bits you can’t explain.

If other people can credibly/provably explain then then listen to the explanations, question them, and if there’s a bit you’re not sure of research until you are, further your own knowledge, learn, you’ll then either agree with the explanations or have further points for discussion.

But don’t jump from “I don’t understand” to “The explanations are lies”.

There is a very big difference between not being able to fully explain the observations, to claiming to know it was a conspiracy and then trying to make the observations fit your belief.

A good check you can ask yourself at any point is this.

“Do I have enough knowledge about X that I’d be happy to publish a paper explaining X for peer review by experts, and that it wouldn’t get pulled apart within 5 mins”

– If the answer is no, then time to get more knowledge until you can do that.

– If the answer is yes, you’re onto a winner, publish it and be famous, whatever the explanation of X is, if you can prove it, you’re right.

Right now I couldn’t fully explain what happened, I don’t have the required level of expertise in all the necessary fields, but that just means I’m equally unable to say it was a cover up, because, as above I don’t have the required level of expertise in all the necessary fields to refute it.

But I’ve not yet seen anything credible or not easily disproved that supports demolition or conspiracy, or plane swapping, or government organised mass murder.

amedias – you’ve just described the scientific method. An ordered way of observing the universe and using those observations to explain phenomena.