• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaiGirl said:
Since I'm still not allowed to post links here, I recommend that you do a GOOGLE search using the words "WTC7" and "videos".

There are plenty of mainstream media videos of the destruction of WTC7 from several different angles.
They show that the controlled demolition of this 47-story skyscraper is what one usually calls a "self-evident truth".

Note the CBS news broadcast where Dan Rather himself actually states that it "looks exactly" like a typical controlled demolition.

I guess Rather himself felt the visual impression of controlled demolition was self-evident.

Does that make Dan Rather a "paranoid conspiracy" theorist ... along with the millions of others who see this as a typical controlled demolition ?
Click to expand...
A resembles B, there A must be an instance of B.

An apple resembles a pear, therefore apples must be pears.

A self-evident truth.

Next?
 
Last edited:
SaiGirl said:
Note the CBS news broadcast where Dan Rather himself actually states that it "looks exactly" like a typical controlled demolition.

I guess Rather himself felt the visual impression of controlled demolition was self-evident.

Does that make Dan Rather a "paranoid conspiracy" theorist ... along with the millions of others who see this as a typical controlled demolition ?
Click to expand...

In a word... Yes.
 
I find the old "well thousands of people thought it looked like a demolition" argument to be near the bottom of the stupidity scale.

I agree, not knowing anything about Controlled demolition, that to my untrained eye, and untrained (in CD) mind, IT LOOKED LIKE those videos you would see on TV of demolitions...at first glance.

But when you get into it,

1. Started at the top
2. No series of loud explosions and timed flashes JUST PRIOR to the collapse.
3. No evidence of explosives found.

Anyone who makes the argument, IMO, is an idiot to begin with.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I find the old "well thousands of people thought it looked like a demolition" argument to be near the bottom of the stupidity scale.

I agree, not knowing anything about Controlled demolition, that to my untrained eye, and untrained (in CD) mind, IT LOOKED LIKE those videos you would see on TV of demolitions...at first glance.

But when you get into it,

1. Started at the top
2. No series of loud explosions and timed flashes JUST PRIOR to the collapse.
3. No evidence of explosives found.

Anyone who makes the argument, IMO, is an idiot to begin with.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Readers please be aware that many of these posters are lying in their teeth. Look at what this guy TAM has just written and compare it to the truth. If he chooses to challenge me on this I will drown him in firefighter and other statements detailing explosions and all the things that show controlled demolition. Want to go for it TAM ?

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down. ''
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWM64aSYxuM&NR=1 great quality authentic

''
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse. ''

'' Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. ''
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
I find the old "well thousands of people thought it looked like a demolition" argument to be near the bottom of the stupidity scale.

I agree, not knowing anything about Controlled demolition, that to my untrained eye, and untrained (in CD) mind, IT LOOKED LIKE those videos you would see on TV of demolitions...at first glance.

But when you get into it,

1. Started at the top
2. No series of loud explosions and timed flashes JUST PRIOR to the collapse.
3. No evidence of explosives found.

Anyone who makes the argument, IMO, is an idiot to begin with.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

IMO i agree too.

I am sure that some on here will attempt to direct us to what people thought they heard or saw. Witnesses will clearly say 'it looked like' or 'it sounded like' or 'it felt like'. Truthers will then post this and try to imply that these witnesses where obviously mistaken and really meant to say "i saw a wired devise attached to a detonator that was stuck inside a stick of what looked like playdoh".

I suppose the imagination does the rest and specifics dont count. A flash becomes a bomb. A rumble becomes a bomb. A smash becomes a bomb. A crash becomes a bomb. Falling debris becomes a bomb. Therefore a falling building with flashes, crashes and debris must have been blown up deliberatley. A pity that physical evidence for such is none existant and the human eye and emotion can easily be manipulated by the armchair psychologist.

Enter BS mode.
 
T.A.M. said:
I find the old "well thousands of people thought it looked like a demolition" argument to be near the bottom of the stupidity scale.

I agree, not knowing anything about Controlled demolition, that to my untrained eye, and untrained (in CD) mind, IT LOOKED LIKE those videos you would see on TV of demolitions...at first glance.

But when you get into it,

1. Started at the top
2. No series of loud explosions and timed flashes JUST PRIOR to the collapse.
3. No evidence of explosives found.

Anyone who makes the argument, IMO, is an idiot to begin with.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I agree with Bill on this one. One #2, you're just flat out wrong.
 
RedIbis said:
I agree with Bill on this one. One #2, you're just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence that there was no series of loud explosions and timed flashes JUST PRIOR to the collapse, or are you saying that would not be a sign of controlled demolition?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I agree with Bill on this one. One #2, you're just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

GREAT.

Then you can easily provide any video which has a loud series of concussive blasts (about 160 to 200 DB) which will then prove there were CD explosions going on.

Feel free. I'll wait for it.

It should be easy to find with all of your investagoogling skillz.

Oh... you mean the datamined out of context quotes from people who were there.

GREAT. Lets go through the basic experimental design process. Have you eliminated any of the 15 to 20 things which are common in office buildings, which when on fire would make an "explosion?"

What? You can't eliminate any of those? Why not? tsk tsk tsk. Now go back to school and try to finish this time. While you are there, take an experimental design course, and one on research methods (just to clear up your lack of understanding of what REAL research is, and how case studies are completed).
 
TruthersLie said:
GREAT.

Then you can easily provide any video which has a loud series of concussive blasts (about 160 to 200 DB) which will then prove there were CD explosions going on.

Feel free. I'll wait for it.

It should be easy to find with all of your investagoogling skillz.

Oh... you mean the datamined out of context quotes from people who were there.

GREAT. Lets go through the basic experimental design process. Have you eliminated any of the 15 to 20 things which are common in office buildings, which when on fire would make an "explosion?"

What? You can't eliminate any of those? Why not? tsk tsk tsk. Now go back to school and try to finish this time. While you are there, take an experimental design course, and one on research methods (just to clear up your lack of understanding of what REAL research is, and how case studies are completed).
Click to expand...

Sure -no problem..

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down. '' See Attached Video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWM64aSYxuM&NR=1 great quality authentic

PS. Any honest citizen out there want to see more evidence ? lol
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Yeah...well he backed off which tells the Readers all they need to know.
Click to expand...
Bill:
As the readers have undoubtedly noticed, you have never been able to explain why these "explosions" were not caught on the numerous taped views of the events. Care to try again (before the "readers" think your a liar)?
 
TruthersLie said:
GREAT.

Then you can easily provide any video which has a loud series of concussive blasts (about 160 to 200 DB) which will then prove there were CD explosions going on.

Feel free. I'll wait for it.

It should be easy to find with all of your investagoogling skillz.

Oh... you mean the datamined out of context quotes from people who were there.

GREAT. Lets go through the basic experimental design process. Have you eliminated any of the 15 to 20 things which are common in office buildings, which when on fire would make an "explosion?"

What? You can't eliminate any of those? Why not? tsk tsk tsk. Now go back to school and try to finish this time. While you are there, take an experimental design course, and one on research methods (just to clear up your lack of understanding of what REAL research is, and how case studies are completed).
Click to expand...

Or you can just resort to ignorance, arrogance and continue on your merry truth seeker ways of spamming obscure forums with talk and woo. Dont let us get in the way of your investigation. Oh this is your investigation. Got it!
 
TruthersLie said:
GREAT.

Then you can easily provide any video which has a loud series of concussive blasts (about 160 to 200 DB) which will then prove there were CD explosions going on.

Feel free. I'll wait for it.

It should be easy to find with all of your investagoogling skillz.

Oh... you mean the datamined out of context quotes from people who were there.

GREAT. Lets go through the basic experimental design process. Have you eliminated any of the 15 to 20 things which are common in office buildings, which when on fire would make an "explosion?"

What? You can't eliminate any of those? Why not? tsk tsk tsk. Now go back to school and try to finish this time. While you are there, take an experimental design course, and one on research methods (just to clear up your lack of understanding of what REAL research is, and how case studies are completed).
Click to expand...

So by this bizarre logic if it wasn't caught on the audio of a videocamera, it didn't happen.

This assumes that videocameras were close enough, with strong enough mics, to capture what eyewitnesses reported.
 
RedIbis said:
So by this bizarre logic if it wasn't caught on the audio of a videocamera, it didn't happen.

This assumes that videocameras were close enough, with strong enough mics, to capture what eyewitnesses reported.
Click to expand...

And as quick as a flash the ignorance and arrogance commenced. Predictable. Soon to follow with BS in tow doing the same. Still no evidence then? Just general chit chat about nothing.
 
RedIbis said:
So by this bizarre logic if it wasn't caught on the audio of a videocamera, it didn't happen.

This assumes that videocameras were close enough, with strong enough mics, to capture what eyewitnesses reported.
Click to expand...
"Strong enough mics"? What the hell does that mean?
 
RedIbis said:
So by this bizarre logic if it wasn't caught on the audio of a videocamera, it didn't happen.

This assumes that videocameras were close enough, with strong enough mics, to capture what eyewitnesses reported.
Click to expand...

Red I find your act beneath you, Please don't pretend that it hasn't been explained to you many times that the cutting charges need to severe the columns would be loud enough to be picked up by any audio recordings from many miles around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom