Is this what you are talking about?
Is this what you forgot to post, the evidence? What is this evidence of?
Hello? Is this it?
Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?
- Thread starter david.watts
- Start date
Is this what you are talking about?
Is this what you forgot to post, the evidence? What is this evidence of?
Hello? Is this it?
david.watts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 293
]BEACHNUT!! I GET IT!! THAT'S GREAT!! I JUST FIGURED OUT YOU ARE A TROLL FOR THE TRUTHER SIDE!! YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS REPLIES ARE AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY SIDE IS WAY OFF BASE OR OUT OF BOUNDS OR EVEN LOONY!! KEEP AT IT!! THAT'S GREAT!!
Last edited:
It's no suprise to me that you are flattered.
Anyway, I have a question for you. Assuming you are correct and wtc7 was controlled demolition and you have all the answers with your extensive research.
Why did they wait untill late afternoon to demolish the building and why did they make it look like CD when they opted for the easy option with the towers ?
Just out of interest how did you mange to miss Wtc7 on the day?
Me?
lol
Free-fall cannot be used to prove CD. Where are your explosives?
Are these them?
Is this proof of explosives?
Last edited:
david.watts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 293
Very good question. I obviously do not know. I can only speculate. I would guess that they waited until late afternoon to let the fires burn long enough to make the collapse at least plausible. I have wondered many times why they did not wait until after dark so that good video could not be taken; little chance building 7 would have been an issue. But perhaps, by waiting that long the fires might have expired making the collapse implausible. I don't think the purpose was to make it "look" like a CD. I think they really wanted to inflict as little damage as possible to the surrounding buildings. Actually I didn't miss it on 9/11. But I had forgotten. I remembered seeing it after I saw the WTC7 collapse video. Also, I believe it was never shown again on TV after 9/11. That is suspicious in and of itself.
Last edited:
So why did they need to get rid of building 7 ?
What 911 truth has is nonsense, made up, or plagiarized from others in 911 truth, a movement of really stupid lies.
911 truth has no evidence, but you think they do. It is called an illusion - this is a lot like instrument flying, 911 truth instruments are inop.
There were no explosives, revisit simile.
No damage to any steel by explosives, no sounds of explosives. BINGO
You made this up. It is a lie. You think it is true, you are wrong. When you take this to 60 Minutes, they will be laughing.
You have no evidence of explosives, thermite was a lie. Fire did it.
Why not use the path of least resistance again? What did you say that was based on? More comedy please; make up another law.
No, you need to find evidence. When will you go tell ABC, CBS, and NBC? Never.
Your CD claim is wrong. Now you are doing the Gish Gallop, sort of.
david.watts
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 293
Spanx: "So why did they need to get rid of building 7 ?"
What I know is that Larry Silverstein purchased much if not all of WTC shortly before 9/11. He immediately took out very large insurance policies. From what I remember, he made sure that everything was covered in the case of terrorism.
Also, from what I remember, the SEC had many working files on serious financial corruption investigations including Enron.
All I can say is that those might be likely reasons they wanted to destroy WTC7.
From online:
Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.
A question arises from the obvious demolition of WTC 7: Why destroy such a valuable piece of real estate?
We know that WTC7's developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7's mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, received a Court-awarded amount of $861 million dollars from Industrial Risk Insurers in February 2002. We know that about $386 million had been invested in WTC7 before its destruction. The Court-award meant that Silverstein Properties and the mortgage-holders would share in about $475 million of profit. [8]
Silverstein Properties is headed by Larry Silverstein, a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders. Silverstein Properties became the primary owner of the WTC Twin Towers less than two months before 9/11/01 (Westfield Malls was Silverstein Properties' minority-partner). Buying from the New York Port Authority, Silverstein Properties invested only $15 million toward a total purchase-price of $3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on holdings worth an estimated $8 billion. The low-rise office buildings WTC 4, 5, and 6, and 400,000 square feet of retail space were included with the Twin Towers in this deal. Silverstein Properties immediately took out extensive insurance policies on its new holdings.
One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9] Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10]
What I know is that Larry Silverstein purchased much if not all of WTC shortly before 9/11. He immediately took out very large insurance policies. From what I remember, he made sure that everything was covered in the case of terrorism.
Also, from what I remember, the SEC had many working files on serious financial corruption investigations including Enron.
All I can say is that those might be likely reasons they wanted to destroy WTC7.
From online:
Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.
A question arises from the obvious demolition of WTC 7: Why destroy such a valuable piece of real estate?
We know that WTC7's developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7's mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, received a Court-awarded amount of $861 million dollars from Industrial Risk Insurers in February 2002. We know that about $386 million had been invested in WTC7 before its destruction. The Court-award meant that Silverstein Properties and the mortgage-holders would share in about $475 million of profit. [8]
Silverstein Properties is headed by Larry Silverstein, a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders. Silverstein Properties became the primary owner of the WTC Twin Towers less than two months before 9/11/01 (Westfield Malls was Silverstein Properties' minority-partner). Buying from the New York Port Authority, Silverstein Properties invested only $15 million toward a total purchase-price of $3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on holdings worth an estimated $8 billion. The low-rise office buildings WTC 4, 5, and 6, and 400,000 square feet of retail space were included with the Twin Towers in this deal. Silverstein Properties immediately took out extensive insurance policies on its new holdings.
One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9] Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10]
Last edited:
This was debunked too. But go ahead recycle some more lies, it is like you are in a religion, a religion of woo.
More BS, you can't answer simple questions, as you Gish Gallop away.
How is your path of least resistance going?
Wow, a bunch of BS you googled up from the failed guys in 911 truth. SPAM
Notice you failed to source your BS. Cut and paste from a 911 truth web site? lol, you posted junk from 911 truth.
Last edited:
There were things exploding and many loud sounds of floor section dropping or even a transfer truss collapsing... Buildings on fire have things exploding in them. Certainly many transformers and oil cooled switch gear would explode from high temps from local fires.
There is no evidence that they were bombs
Ok, and what was the reason for destroying the towers ?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Great, let them know at AE911T
,,,,,,,,,, and now back to proving NIST wrong........
Yes, close enough.
An opinion.
Because its basically immaterial. NIST explained why it was immaterial. That said we have a girder that normally, at room temperature, supports its load on a foot long flange. Then it gets heated to several hundred degrees and pushed to where only what, 1 inch of flange (8% of the normal flange width) is now supporting the same load, on a seat that itself is also at several hundred degrees temp, a seat that is attached to a column that is also at several hundred degrees.
Do the engineers at AE911T really expect that this could/should/would not fail?
There is a difference between hearing sounds that are described as "like" explosions, and the sounds of a blast. That said, eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence. People are not recording devices, our recollections are coloured by our experiences or lack of experience with the sensory input we get. So, back to actual recordings, and there simply are no recordings of sounds that would be consistent with blasts large enough to sever the columns of any of the three structures in question.
Really? He said "nobody that’s produced it", and that is quite true. In the debris field there was no evidence of pooled , resolidified molten steel. NONE! Its not in evidence therefore its a non-starter of an argument. Why does AE911T still contend that it is?
Jennings said explosion, Hess said it was not an explosion. Jennings said that he saw the towers from the window he was at but it was not possible for him to do so because of WHERE he was when he was at the window.
There is no other evidence at all of an explosion in WTC 7 at the time that AE911T puts J&H in the stairwell.
I don't know why. Why does AE911T want this data? If they want to "confirm" the FEA results that NIST reported by plugging in the data to the very same program NIST used this is simply a witch hunt driven by AE911T's apparent raison d'etre of proving-NIST-wrong. Want to illustrate whether or not the fire and mechanical damage to WTC7 would cause it to fall? DO AN FEA! Compile your own data set, use a different FEA of your choosing. Over a decade later all AE911T can do is shout propaganda from a soapbox! They tout themselves as Engineers yet fail to do much engineering, choosing instead to leave research to high school physics teachers and carpenters. I commend Chandler and Sarns for actually realizing that something actually NEEDED to be DONE. How come the vast bulk of the actual engineers at AE911T cannot come to the same realization?
The alternative is supposed to be AE911T? That group is doing little more than soapbox grandstanding. Is AE911T following scientific method? Maybe they would if they ever actually DID something. 12 years after the event however, nada!
Show me!
Politically driven opinion at best. Hyperbolic paranoid drivel at worst. Even the in between is hardly worth discussing.
Paranoid delusional leap past any logical and scientific path.
………
Really? So you should have no problem at all describing a full scenario for the events of 9/11/01. You may start with the hijacking of four aircraft, include slamming them into the towers, one into the Pentagon and the crash into a field in Penn. of the last. Explain how , when and where the explosives were placed in three of the four structures hit. Explain how these explosives managed to be located on the floors hit by the planes, how they survived the impacts and the fires.
If you include the supposedly odd incidence of having perimeter column trees sent 600 feet to WTC 7 then explain how that CAN be accomplished using explosives without tearing said column tree into shreds.
Explain how a passing moment of free fall occurring a second before collapse completion indicates CD. Where's the physics in that? Explain how a few moments ABOVE free fall fits into this scenario.
Explain the damage to the Pentagon. Was it aircraft impact damage? Was flight 93 the cause of the smoking crater in Penn.?
How about the political aspect? If its all a set up to garner war with Iraq, why no Iraqi hijackers? Why no connection between Iraq and 9/11/01 for years? Why attack a failed country like Afghanistan, with its attendant problems with even getting troops there in the first place?
I know you do not have the physics to answer many of these questions, (hey, I'm just asking questions). However you do have the resource that is 2000 engineers and architects at your disposal should you choose to try and compel them to get off their collective butts and help.
Only if you open your mind up wide enough to allow your brains to fall out.
IMHO of course.
Have at it!
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So this highly secretive act of gross treason, the mass murder of 3000 people , the vast bulk of which were American citizens, was perpetrated by Silverstein, or the perpetrators decided that he was a stand up guy and should be included in the planning so that he could make out well with the insurance. To that end L.S. took out supposedly more insurance that would be necessary, and insurance companies are in the habit of paying out more than the cost of replacing the loss? Try burning your house down and see if that works.
Enron is one of the few examples of corporate malfeasance in which anyone DID go to jail. So the SEC could not have lost too much evidence in that case, or despite having done so they did better in prosecuting it than in most others. How very odd!
Then of course demolishing a building has to be the least effective way one could come up with to get rid of evidence. Its simply not very reliable. Nah, the better path would have been to have fires on the floors where you need to have stuff disappear. Hey, maybe THAT is what Jennings and Hess were doing in the building so long, feeding documents to the fires.
Look you are right, I have a truther meme to push.
Jennings and Hess were Illuminati agents sent into WTC 7 to oversee the placing of explosive charges and the burning of sensitive documents in the various gov't offices in that structure.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
This thread has gotten way off track. It's purpose is specifically regarding claims of free fall acceleration in the observed behavior in the fall of the exterior of WTC 7, and whether any such observed behavior is only explainable by a controlled demolition. Other moribund threads should be used for unrelated claims and debate.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
True that. I will suggest to the mods a split, with a new thread "NIST Did Not Utilise the Scientific Method" First post to be David's, post 771, above.
Last edited:
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
- Explosions are not evidence of explosives.
- No one here denies or dismisses the witnesses\audio.
- The Truthers are notorious for dismissing witnesses that don't agree with their version of reality. Some even dismiss witnesses of the aircraft impacts.
david said:
They did a lot more closely than you have so far.
There likely were explosions, given the series of events. But explosions are not evidence of explosives.
david said:
It's not, not that that has ever stopped the Truthers.
david said:
There is no reliable evidence that support controlled demolition beyond reasonable doubt.
That is why.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
^ I'm having the same sort of "debate" with someone on a 911 Facebook page. Apparently there is a peculiar form of Trutherism conflating "loud sound described as an explosion" with "evidence of explosives." Adjectives vs nouns. I know language can be confusing but seriously...
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
A misrepresentation of the debunker position. There were no explosions consistent with explosives capable of severing the columns of any of the three structures in question. I daresay that there were explosions coming from WTC 5 as well, no one bothers to talk about that, nor do truthers bother talking about the explosions reported in many other, very ordinary, fires.
It is quite consistent with scientific principle to ignore irrelevant data.
Really? Why? Because there is no overt evidence , no other scenario, that better covers the entirety of the events of 9/11/01 than that known to truthers as the OCT.
We KNOW that there were planes that hit the structures. We KNOW that there were multi floor, unfought fires raging in the structures.
You ASSUME that there were explosives of some nature planted somewhere, by someone, at some time
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
All of this was recycled truther talking points, some of it factually incorrect, and all of it completely off topic to this thread.
Start a new thread, this post doesn't belong here. You're wasting everybody's time, as you have been for about 3 weeks. I'm becoming less and less impressed with your writing, your thought process and your approach to communicating with us.
I may just ignore you, because I don't think your opinion is worth much, frankly.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
That's all the content in your post which was relevant to this thread. The rest was a self-indulgent waste of our time.
You agree, while still trying to derail and pollute the forum, that freefall cannot prove CD. Your basic dishonesty and disrespect is not even slightly amusing or impressive. I expect more from a grown man, yet I continue to be disappointed by truthers.
Thanks for playing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
