South Tower 81st floor filled with thermite?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It appears to me that Anders Lindman is little more than a clone of Bill Smith, only without Bill Smiths grammar and spelling.

 

[The Platypus]

Don't forget that there ARE some witnesses who claim they didn't see a plane, some of whom would perhaps have missed the planes anyway if they were real, but some witnesses may actually have been watching one of the WTC towers (not many watching the North tower, but many people watching the South tower) at the time of the fireball explosion(s).

Like the lady in the video you gave me as your "no plane evidence" who said she didn't see the plane because she was still on the train. You didn't even watch that video did you, another 911 kook told you that was "no plane" proof and you just believed it.

 

[twinstead]

It appears to me that Anders Lindman is little more than a clone of Bill Smith, only without Bill Smiths grammar and spelling.

Yup. If one can imagine it, it must be true.

 

[Anders Lindman]

How can you call someone a witness when they themselves say that didn't see anything? Follow up question. Have any of those witnesses continued their statements with something, anything, along the lines of "Therefore there were no airplanes that day"?

Next, if you need to pepper your post(s) with words like "If", "May" and "Perhaps" while offering no evidence to support those claims other than incomplete cherry picked statements then you really should evaluate your position on the matter before someone decides that you suffer from CRI (Cranium Rectal Inversion).

Some witnesses could have seen the fireball explosions without seeing any plane, such as in the video I posted earlier in some thread.

 

[Anders Lindman]

This sort of statement is one of the many reasons why normal people think no-planers are so bizarre. What anyone reasonable would expect is that: some people would see the plane, on the basis that they were standing in a place from which the plane could be seen and were looking in the right direction at the time; some would not see the plane because they were in a location from which the plane could not be seen - for example, underground on a train, or on the wrong side of the tower; some would not see the plane because, although they were standing in a place from which the plane could be seen, they were not looking in the right direction; and some people would be surprised at not having seen the plane because, although they were in group 2 or 3, they thought they should have been in group 1. For some reason, no-planers take accounts that say "I didn't see the plane," mentally transform them into accounts that say "I definitely should have seen the plane but I didn't," and then decide that these accounts are so authoritative that they outweigh all other accounts that say "I saw the plane". It's very difficult to know how even to communicate with someone capable of such thoroughly incompetent reasoning.

Dave

If someone saw only a fireball explosion without seeing any plane (such as the guy who video filmed the explosion that I have posted about before), then it could of course be that they simply didn't see a plane. However, another possibility is that they saw no plane because there was no plane. Simple irrefutable logic.

 

[Justin39640]

If someone saw only a fireball explosion without seeing any plane (such as the guy who video filmed the explosion that I have posted about before), then it could of course be that they simply didn't see a plane. However, another possibility is that they saw no plane because there was no plane. Simple irrefutable logic.

Even though the plane is clearly visible in the video...

 

[Dave Rogers]

If someone saw only a fireball explosion without seeing any plane (such as the guy who video filmed the explosion that I have posted about before), then it could of course be that they simply didn't see a plane. However, another possibility is that they saw no plane because there was no plane. Simple irrefutable logic.

If a great many people saw a plane and some didn't, then the only rational conclusion is that there was a plane and some people didn't see it. Even simpler irrefutable logic.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

If a great many people saw a plane and some didn't, then the only rational conclusion is that there was a plane and some people didn't see it. Even simpler irrefutable logic.

Anders. This is how rational people think. Take notes.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If someone saw only a fireball explosion without seeing any plane (such as the guy who video filmed the explosion that I have posted about before), then it could of course be that they simply didn't see a plane. However, another possibility is that they saw no plane because there was no plane. Simple irrefutable logic.

yet not one person has come forward and said they they were in exactly the right place watching exactly the right spot and did not see any aircraft. There must have been tens of thousands of people looking at the towers at that moment yet not a single one has said "the emperor has no clothes".

Are you Jammo? or just another of the voices in his head?

 

[Sabrina]

Of course it's possible that people could have seen the fireball from the South Tower and yet not seen the plane itself.

Have you seen New York, Anders? It's a maze of streets and filled with extremely tall buildings; someone on the ground could easily be at an angle to only see the face of the South Tower that the fireball emitted from and not see any of the sky beyond it except what's above the towers; thereby not seeing the plane as it flew in and impacted on the side of the building completely opposite from them. There are any number of angles wherein one can see the building and yet not see the plane as it flew into the building. That doesn't negate the fact that a PLANE flew into the building and CAUSED the fireball that you have numerous witnesses for.

Your "irrefutable logic" just got refuted, you know.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If a great many people saw a plane and some didn't, then the only rational conclusion is that there was a plane and some people didn't see it. Even simpler irrefutable logic.

Dave

Yeah, but here you make an assumption that I don't. My premise is that people did NOT see any plane. And therefore all people who say they did are either liars, mistaken, or saw the plane on CNN and/or the like.

 

[Oystein]

Yeah, but here you make an assumption that I don't. My premise is that people did NOT see any plane. And therefore all people who say they did are either liars, mistaken, or saw the plane on CNN and/or the like.

This is a conclusion from your premise only.
If your premise is "no plane", any sound logic of course will give a result of "no plane". IF "no plane" THEN "no plane". It's called a tautology.
Of course, this would be the case for any premise: If your premise is that a giant blob of green cheese swallowed the towers, then every witness not reporting a giant blob of green cheese is a liar or mistaken, and every evidence against green cheese is obviously faked.

However, you need to first prove your premise.

 

[angrysoba]

"Fuji Bank had torn up the 81st floor, he said, and stripped it down to the bare bone to reinforce the trusses so that the floor could hold more weight. Then they had built a raised floor and filled the entire floor with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.

...

But were they really batteries?

"It's weird," he said. "They were never turned on."

So, what really was on the 81st floor of WTC 2? What was in these heavy "battery-looking things?" Were they batteries, or were they Thermite?"

From: http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

Maybe this has been said already but "81st floor filled with thermite?"

Does this mean that at exactly the point that some government guy aimed a plane at the NWO ignited thermite which then sawed off the top bit of the building which then fell through the building like a... I dunno... like a piledriver and initiated this gravity-driven collapse and stuff?

The crazy thing is that the Truthers are eventually going to believe in every last detail of the "official story" but will end up believing that it was still an inside job.


Oh, and it was the Jews (!)

 

[Anders Lindman]

yet not one person has come forward and said they they were in exactly the right place watching exactly the right spot and did not see any aircraft. There must have been tens of thousands of people looking at the towers at that moment yet not a single one has said "the emperor has no clothes".

Are you Jammo? or just another of the voices in his head?

But here is a person who even filmed the event! See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6897121&postcount=757

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yeah, but here you make an assumption that I don't.

No, you make an assumption that I don't. Your starting assumption is that there was no plane. You even admit it:

My premise is that people did NOT see any plane.

And, therefore, as Oystein says, your conclusion that people did not see a plane is tautological, and useless.

Dave

 

[Anders Lindman]

This is a conclusion from your premise only.
If your premise is "no plane", any sound logic of course will give a result of "no plane". IF "no plane" THEN "no plane". It's called a tautology.
Of course, this would be the case for any premise: If your premise is that a giant blob of green cheese swallowed the towers, then every witness not reporting a giant blob of green cheese is a liar or mistaken, and every evidence against green cheese is obviously faked.

However, you need to first prove your premise.

No, I gave an example of an inference: IF no plane THEN all witnesses = false.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Of course it's possible that people could have seen the fireball from the South Tower and yet not seen the plane itself.

Have you seen New York, Anders? It's a maze of streets and filled with extremely tall buildings; someone on the ground could easily be at an angle to only see the face of the South Tower that the fireball emitted from and not see any of the sky beyond it except what's above the towers; thereby not seeing the plane as it flew in and impacted on the side of the building completely opposite from them. There are any number of angles wherein one can see the building and yet not see the plane as it flew into the building. That doesn't negate the fact that a PLANE flew into the building and CAUSED the fireball that you have numerous witnesses for.

Your "irrefutable logic" just got refuted, you know.

Again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6897121&postcount=757

 

[Anders Lindman]

Maybe this has been said already but "81st floor filled with thermite?"

Does this mean that at exactly the point that some government guy aimed a plane at the NWO ignited thermite which then sawed off the top bit of the building which then fell through the building like a... I dunno... like a piledriver and initiated this gravity-driven collapse and stuff?

The crazy thing is that the Truthers are eventually going to believe in every last detail of the "official story" but will end up believing that it was still an inside job.


Oh, and it was the Jews (!)

I believe in the no plane theory. And also that the U.S. government was innocent. The perpetrators needed to make sure the towers collapsed at a floor where the planes were supposed to have crashed, hence the thermite.

Staged plane crashes. Detonations below the basements of the towers, and thermite to make the collapses start at a floor within the staged crash areas.

 

[angrysoba]

I believe in the no plane theory. And also that the U.S. government was innocent. The perpetrators needed to make sure the towers collapsed at a floor where the planes were supposed to have crashed, hence the thermite.

Staged plane crashes. Detonations below the basements of the towers, and thermite to make the collapses start at a floor within the staged crash areas.

Utterly mental.

The "basement explosions" had no effect and the "staged crash areas" behaved, according to you, exactly the way that the official story says they did. The only difference is that the "official story" cites planes as doing the work you think thermite did.

Don't you think the "planes theory" makes more sense than the "no planes theory" given that you have to explain the presence of thermite and the illusion of planes in the latter but that the former is the same but without the difficult to explain bits?

 

[Oystein]

No, I gave an example of an inference: IF no plane THEN all witnesses = false.

Yes. Just like "IF giant blob of green cheese, THEN all evidence faked". From which follows "green cheese".
And from yours follows "no plane".
I just left out one trivial step.