Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[bill smith]

Yes, you belive 8 floors vanished into thin air so they could not provide resistence. I know.



No, Im asking you what kind of explosives were used. You claim explosive effects that do not match ANY EXPLOSIVES KNOWN TO MAN

There is no blast wave, no immediate violent ejection of matter, no air condensed, no detonations can be heard and no one suffered any blast trauma. You can see all these apart from the last one in every single large high explosive blast caught on tape. Not so on 911. It was all slow and gradual.

The power you require to hurl those steel beams around would have leveled half the city. Sorry Bill, but you cant just keep claiming it has to exist because there was so much destruction. Explosives have certain characterisics and the WTC collapses do not match any of them. Explosives do not work the way you want them to work.

Well we know that columns were ejected at high power anyway because they are stuck in buildings all around ground zero. THere are planty of pictures I believe. So for those columns I think explosives were probably used. The collapse of the building certainly did not eject them so far and so fast.

I think that the 4-ton chunk going 600 feet is just a planted story.

 

[A W Smith]

Actually you don't need to read either to be 100% certain those buildings were blown up. You just need to look at the facts and let them lead you to most obvious explanation.

We have, and concluded that in fact, the buildings weren't blown up.

(Remember Occam's Razor) This is a case where either explosives were used, or the laws of physics were altered for the day. And that is a true dichotomy.

You keep using that phrase "Occam's Razor", I do not think you know what those words mean.

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

if you insist the buildings were blown up, then yes, i agree, the laws of physics were violated that day. You see the laws of physics dictate that any substance or device that can be made to produce a volume of rapidly expanding gas in an extremely brief period will vibrate air molecules and create sound on the scale equivalent to the force of destruction. Without the sound, you simply cannot have the explosion. QED no explosive controlled demolition

In a trial we call this 'the preponderance of reason' and what properly informed lay people use to decide (even the most serious life and death) cases in which there is completely contradictory testimony from 'experts.'

The reference to Plato regards the way in which people generally conform to social pressure. Plato goes on at length on this issue in a number of different places. There have also been a slew of psychological experiments that reveal the same thing. For example:
asch: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=asch+experiments&aq=f
Milgram: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milgram+experiment&aq=0&oq=milgram+

and others reveal the same phenomena.
The Milgram Experiments are especially shocking because the subjects believed they were actually (potentially seriously) harming another person and they did so anyway when prompted by an authority figure to continue.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#psycho

Psychogenetic Fallacy:

if you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong.​

 

[Edx]

Well we know that columns were ejected at high power anyway because they are stuck in buildings all around ground zero. THere are planty of pictures I believe. So for those columns I think explosives were probably used. The collapse of the building certainly did not eject ythem so far and so fast.

But when you require explosioves so poweful it would have taken half the city with it, doesnt that make you question whether a less explosive explanation is more likely?

Make no mistake, the explosives you require cannot exist and you refuse to show they could exist, even in theory. So all we have is you essentially arguing the same as someone that would claim an Nuculear bomb was dropped on NYC but that didnt have any effects a Nuke would have and we're all meant to just believe that some undiscovered explosive capable of doing that exists and was used on 911, even though we have no evidence such an explosive can exist even in theory.

I think that the 4-ton chunk going 600 feet is just a planted story

So wait, you think they planted debris so insanely stupid truthers like Gage would start believing in impossibly violent but quiet explosives and give truthers a bad name? They knew all that in advance did they?

 

[dafydd]

Dont know why you're laughing Bill, you're the one making up mythical explosives that do not and could not possibly exist in this universe.

Bill is just pleased with the attention.

 

[Edx]

. if you insist the buildings were blown up, then yes, i agree, the laws of physics were violated that day. You see the laws of physics dictate that any substance or device that can be made to produce a volume of rapidly expanding gas in an extremely brief period will vibrate air molecules and create sound on the scale equivalent to the force of destruction. Without the sound, you simply cannot have the explosion. QED no explosive controlled demolition

He already knows that because I showed him this video which he said he watched:

 

[bill smith]

But when you require explosioves so poweful it would have taken half the city with it, doesnt that make you question whether a less explosive explanation is more likely?

Make no mistake, the explosives you require cannot exist and you refuse to show they could exist, even im theory. So all we have is you essentially doing the same as someone that would say an Nuculear bomb dropped on NYC but that didnt have any effects a Nuke would have and we're all meant to just believe that some undiscovered explosive capable of doing that exists and was used on 911.



So wait, you think they planted debris so truthers like Gage would start believing in impossibly violent but quiet explosives?

Many people described the top 13-sloor assembly as 'exploding' including firefighters. So there is no problem with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVRPBPz-Gz8&NR=1

 

[bill smith]

Many people described the top 13-sloor assembly as 'exploding' including firefighters. So threre is no problem with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVRPBPz-Gz8&NR=1

Post that picture and I will open your eyes EDX

 

[Edx]

Many people described the top 13-sloor assembly as 'exploding' including firefighters. So threre is no problem with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVRPBPz-Gz8&NR=1

I dont care what anyone "describes". People have used the word explosion to refer to steel crane collapsing or underground gas explosions or a transformer can explode, people use the word explosion even when they know they arent talking about bombs. The fact is we dont see any effects that look like characteristics of a high explosive we see in any high explosive blast caught on tape.

In a high explosive blast, for one example, you can literally see the blast wave. You require one capable of hurling heavy steel around, this would require an insane amount of TNT equivilent of energy to be released, so all the characteristics of a high explosive you can see on that video from vsauce would only be more obvious. We dont see ANY of them with the WTC.

 

[000063]

Many people described the top 13-sloor assembly as 'exploding' including firefighters. So threre is no problem with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVRPBPz-Gz8&NR=1

Explosions != explosives. I can get a battery to explode, but is it an explosive?

 

[000063]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Occam's Razor something to do with the simplest explanation?

And it refers to likelihood, not certainty.

 

[twinstead]

bill obviously thinks locomotives cause tornadoes because so many witnesses hear them when tornadoes are present.

 

[bill smith]

I dont care what anyone "describes". People have used the word explosion to refer to steel crane collapsing or underground gas explosions, people use the word explosion even when they know they arent talking about bombs. The fact is we dont see any effects that look like characteristics of a high explosive we see in any high explosive blast caught on tape.

In a high explosive blast, for one example, you can literally see the blast wave. You require one capable of hurling heavy steel around, this would require an insane amount of TNT equivilent of energy to be released, so all the characteristics of a high explosive you can see on that video from vsauce would only be more obvious. We dont see ANY of them with the WTC. None at all.

I have firefighters saying that the top 'exploded' I have steel beams stuck in buildings all around. I know that the collapse itself did not cause that to happen.

I have enough.

 

[Edx]

I have firefighters saying that the top 'exploded'

Again, people use the word explode all the time to refer to things that arent explosives or bombs and typically they know it isnt an explosive or bomb before they use the word. We have VIDEOS of the collapse. We dont need to rely on witness'.

I have steel beams stuck in buildings all around. I know the the collapse itself did not cause that to happen.

I have enough.

Apparently you have enough to conclude that impossible explosives destroyed the WTC, we've come full circle it seems.

So again we're back to you telling me what reason we have to believe these explosives can exist even in theory. How can any explosive possibly work the way you say it worked. The fact is the WTC collapses exhibit ZERO characteristics REQUIRED by a high explosive blast. Ive shown you video and written a short list of some of what some of the most obvious characteristics are, but you ignored it. I guess we're done here.

 

[twinstead]

I have firefighters saying that the top 'exploded' I have steel beams stuck in buildings all around. I know the the collapse itself did not cause that to happen.

I have enough.

Good thing how much YOU have is irrelevant, bill; the real world will still be studying the collapses in engineering classrooms and changing building codes despite your stern declarations.

 

[bill smith]

Agian, people use the word explode all the time to refer to things that arent explosives. We have VIDEOS of the collapse. We dont need to rely on witness'.



Enough to conclude that impossible explosives destroyed the WTC, we've come full circle it seems.

So again we're back to you telling me what reason we have to believe these explosives can exist even in theory. How can it poissible work the way you say it worked. The fatc that they exhiobit ZERO characteistics REQUIRED by a high explisive blast.

I have firemen telling me they saw the top explode and I have visuals of beams flying far and fast. I have the same beams stuck in buildings and I even have video iof the top exploding.

It's enough. I don't need more.

 

[bill smith]

Good thing how much YOU have is irrelevant, bill; the real world will still be studying the collapses in engineering classrooms and changing building codes despite your stern declarations.

Ir's a killer isn't it. And to think that the poor unfortunate kids in school are being lied to from the ground up.

 

[Edx]

I have firemen telling me they saw the top explode and I have visuals of beams flying far and fast. I have the same neams stuck in buildings and I even have video iof the top exploding.

It's enough. I don't need more.

You just repeated the exact same post back to me? Wow... I guess you're stuck in a loop. Did I break you?

We're done, you have ignored all my points. You just keep adamently stating that impossible explosives destroyed the towers. It would be better if you just accepted that you believe in science fiction weapons from films rather than trying to argue about thermite. Thermite, even if it were explosive, even if it could be made into a high explosive, would never be able to exhibit characteristics that do not fit that of a high explosive. High explosives going off look a certain way for a reason, it did not look that way on 911, the collapses did not have ANY characteristic required in a high explosive blast.

 

[bill smith]

You just repeated the exact same post back to me? Wow... I guess you're stuck in a loop. Did I break you?

We're done, you have ignored all my points. You just keep adamently stating that impossible explosives destroyed the towers. It would be better if you just accepted that you believe in science fiction weapons from films rather than trying to argue about thermite. Thermite, even if it were explosive, even if it could be made into a high explosive, would never be able to exhibit charactertsics that do not fit that of a high explosive. High explosives going off look a certain way for a reason, it did not look that way on 911.

Didn't you want to have your eyes opened then ? No piccy-pic then ?

 

[laca]

As I understand it Dave some advanced polymers can be added to nanothermite to make it explosive. Ordinary nanothermite only burns ferociously without giving off the gas you would need in an explosive. The polymers are designed to propogate vast amounts of gas very quickly turning the NT into a (high) explosive. Versatile stuff.

Since no citation is forthcoming, I think those reading this forum can easily dismiss this claim.

Bill, you should retract this claim until such time as you can provide the citation.

I think this observation is key. These raving lunatics throw around big words and never intend to back them up. It's just like debating creotards, IDiots and the like. We should not let them get away with these. No matter how big their Dunning-Kruger "coefficient" is, they need to realize this **** won't fly here.

 

[Edx]

Didn't you want to have your eyes opened then ? No piccy-pic then ?

You ignore the point again. All you are trying to do is tell me that the damage to some building is great therefore explosives had to have gone off.

But we see the collapse of the WTC and we see no characteristics that we can see in a high explosive detonation. No visible blast wave, no air condensing, no rapid and violent ejection of matter, no sounds of gigantic detonations from explosives that are powerful enough to hurl heavy steel around. Why not? There is a reason this is present in a high explosive blast. All of these have to be present on 911 if explosives were used yet we see none of them, its all slow and gradual. You believe in IMPOSSIBLE EXPLOSIVES.