9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[Steezie]

I have already presented a considerable amount of eyewitness testimony from unrelated sources.

And video evidence of a loud explosion and destruction to the basement levels in like the 3rd post of this thread.

Ok, are you being deliberately dense or are you just ignoring what Im saying. Do you have any PHYSICAL evidence to back up witness testimony and unsourced video?

 

[joebudda]

Ok, are you being deliberately dense or are you just ignoring what Im saying. Do you have any PHYSICAL evidence to back up witness testimony and unsourced video?

Maybe you can point me to a study where a demolition hypotheses was scrutinized? And maybe highlight some of the methods they used.

And go ahead and deny the video evidence and eyewitness, I could care less, I find it to be very important evidence and I find it to be persuasive.

 

[Steezie]

Maybe you can point me to a study where a demolition hypotheses was scrutinized? And maybe highlight some of the methods they used.

Fine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TpzpQyckMQ

This is a rendering of the crash from several different angles and perspectives. This was a professionally done recreation based off the official reports of what happened and aired on the History channel 2 hr feature on the WTC and events surrounding it

Now, are you gonna show any physical evidence that supports witness testimony?

 

[keith99]

Uber-secret black ops "silent explosives" is my guess.

No. Oh wait maybe! But not black ops, men in black! They used implosion devices acquired fro space aliens.

 

[joebudda]

Fine

This is a rendering of the crash from several different angles and perspectives. This was a professionally done recreation based off the official reports of what happened and aired on the History channel 2 hr feature on the WTC and events surrounding it

Now, are you gonna show any physical evidence that supports witness testimony?

So are you telling me that this pretty computer animation is a study where a demolition hypotheses was scrutinized? This is a joke, right?

The witness testimony supports itself being it was from many sources either during or directly after the events. Which is why I find it to be important and not so easily dismissed. And your pretty little animation doesn't explain the damage that was videoed and explosions that were witnessed in the basement, or in other parts of the building.

 

[keith99]

You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them. In this case there is none, therefore the witness testimonies must be considered erroneous or mistaken.

Or if htere is a convincing explaination of why there is no evidence. Though I fear I've reopend a can of worms there as of course the great conspiricy is convincing for those who want to believe it and that answers all unanswered questions.

I'll give an example. If there were witnesses that said the Titanic was hit by a torpedo and that is why it went down we would have had a reasonable explanation of why there was no evidence. Or to get technical no evidence we could recover. But decades later that would fall apart.

If the claim was the tower went down because there was a fuel and ammo depot in the basement that was deliberatly set off I can see lack of evidence for the trigger, which would be hidable, but not lack of evidence of the ammo and fuel.

Here if it was a controlled demolition there would have been many triggers and many sites of explosives. There should be plenty of physical evidence.

 

[joebudda]

Or if htere is a convincing explaination of why there is no evidence. Though I fear I've reopend a can of worms there as of course the great conspiricy is convincing for those who want to believe it and that answers all unanswered questions.

I'll give an example. If there were witnesses that said the Titanic was hit by a torpedo and that is why it went down we would have had a reasonable explanation of why there was no evidence. Or to get technical no evidence we could recover. But decades later that would fall apart.

If the claim was the tower went down because there was a fuel and ammo depot in the basement that was deliberatly set off I can see lack of evidence for the trigger, which would be hidable, but not lack of evidence of the ammo and fuel.

Here if it was a controlled demolition there would have been many triggers and many sites of explosives. There should be plenty of physical evidence.

Which bring up the question why did Bush wait so long to have an investigation in the first place, which seems like a no brainer to investigate if nothing else how to make buildings stronger and safer? And why did they prevent people from the evidence and ship it out of country? Amongst countless of other questions just involving the 911 commission itself. But that is getting off topic.

 

[Btodd]

I can't say for sure if it was a controlled demolition one way or another, I don't think there has been an investigation into it to confirm or deny it one way or another. Maybe further investigation needs to be done?

I'm not asking you to 'say for sure' whether or not it was a controlled demolition. But if you even think that's a plausible possibility, then let's put it to the test. Where are the numerous, sequenced explosions that CANNOT BE MISSED in a controlled demolition? If you don't have them, you don't have a controlled demolition.

Now, this is the very reason the 'thermate' claim was invented in the first place......because there are no explosions. So, if you are really a skeptic, and thus require hard evidence for your beliefs.....where is the hard evidence for a controlled demolition? Skepticism involves doubting a claim until there is sufficient evidence to remove that doubt. Did you ever doubt controlled demolitions? If so, then what hard evidence (not simply the assumption that a handful of people referencing 'explosions' meant 'demolitions') led you to think controlled demolitions happened or even MIGHT have happened? I want to see your skepticism in action, please. Evidence.

And you are assuming this is some typical demolition job in order to deny it even being a possibility, which is fine, deny all you want. But I understand that this is by no means typical and if it was demolitions that brought them down I would assume they would do their best to disguise it if they didn't want it to be known. Like maybe weaken the structure with explosions first. But I can't know being the hypothesis was completely ignored.

See, here we go. You realize that you can't produce any hard evidence for a controlled demolition, so you fantasize that it might have been a 'new' form, in which they were able to conceal explosions, or used some new method that is yet unknown.

That's a prime example of starting with the conclusion first (the Gub'ment did it), and trying to twist things to fit your conclusion.

If you're going to propose a controlled demolition that has none of the features of controlled demolition, then it has nothing to do with skepticism or following the evidence where it leads. You're (once again) making an excuse for why you have no evidence.

So please don't use the word 'deny', when I'm merely asking you to provide hard evidence for controlled demolitions. The only denial has been yours, by proposing that it could have been some new form of demolitions that's never been done in order to continue your fantasy without any evidence for it.

I can only use the eyewitness and video evidence to determine whether there were explosions that don't fit with a "jet fuel fire" which couldn't even have been that hot being people were standing in the hole left behind, which they wouldn't be able to do if the temperatures needed to weaken the steal supporting columns were present unless they were some kind of superman/women, let alone it would burn up not down like we see it does outside of the building when the plane hit.

If you think the fires weren't that bad, then what were the more than 100+ suicide jumpers ending their lives for? I think that's quite a slap in the face of the victims and their families.

So you can hold up the OV as gospel all you like, I am skeptical. But that don't mean you shouldn't treat the OV as gospel, go ahead, I just don't, I am a skeptic.

I don't need to hold the OV as gospel. I'm talking to someone who thinks controlled demolitions are a real possibility, and I'm asking for evidence that would lead me to believe controlled demolitions happened on 9/11.

Can you give me some, or is the fact that people used the word 'explosion' to describe a variety of loud noises and impacts in the minutes after the attack supposed to do it for me, without any hard evidence or even a logical explanation for the lack of explosions that a controlled demolition involves?

If you can't give me any more than that, then just say so. I already know the answer.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

And go ahead and deny the video evidence and eyewitness, I could care less, I find it to be very important evidence and I find it to be persuasive.

Persuasive of what, exactly? What did those videos persuade you OF?


Btodd

 

[CCGirl]

The videos presented are the most convincing evidence of secondary explosions.

 

[joebudda]

Btodd

This thread is about explosives, so I have been trying to stay on point. And the eyewitness I believe to be excellent evidence being it is coming from many sources.

But regarding 'thermate' the chemical signature was found in the debris along with deposits of molten metal that can't be explained any other way.
And Prof. Steven Jones has written a paper that is in the peer-review process right now.
Here it is if you desire to look and peer-review it for yourself. It is in PDF format.
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

.

 

[CCGirl]

This thread is about explosives, so I have been trying to stay on point. And the eyewitness I believe to be excellent evidence being it is coming from many sources.

But regarding 'thermate' the chemical signature was found in the debris along with deposits of moulted metal that can't be explained any other way.
And Prof. Steven Jones has written a paper that is in the peer-review process right now.
Here it is if you desire to look and peer-review it for yourself. It is in PDF format.
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?

Thanks for the link.......the most powerful testimony came fromn the firemen.

 

[Steezie]

But regarding 'thermate' the chemical signature was found in the debris along with deposits of molten metal that can't be explained any other way.

What exactly was the signature, what chemicals was it made of?

As a welder, its my job to know about this so I'd just like to hear what exactly this chemical signature was.

 

[joebudda]

What exactly was the signature, what chemicals was it made of?

As a welder, its my job to know about this so I'd just like to hear what exactly this chemical signature was.

Read the paper and peer-review it for yourself, I am no expert.

 

[Steezie]

Read the paper and peer-review it for yourself, I am no expert.

Its a fifty page paper, I am not going to sit there and spend an hour going crosseyed reading a 50 page paper for one piece of data that you, since you are apparently so knowlegeable on this subject, can provide.

 

[joebudda]

Its a fifty page paper, I am not going to sit there and spend an hour going crosseyed reading a 50 page paper for one piece of data that you, since you are apparently so knowlegeable on this subject, can provide.

If you would like to remain ignorant regarding it, then more power to you.

 

[Steezie]

If you would like to remain ignorant regarding it, then more power to you.

Look I do not have the time or the compulsion to read it so since you cant seem to produce any answers Im gonna have to assume one of two things

1. That you have not read the paper yourself and so dont know where the data is or even if the paper contains the information.

2. That you HAVE read it and you are bluffing, hoping I dont have the spare time to read it and find out that it isnt there.

 

[joebudda]

Look I do not have the time or the compulsion to read it so since you cant seem to produce any answers Im gonna have to assume one of two things

1. That you have not read the paper yourself and so dont know where the data is or even if the paper contains the information.

2. That you HAVE read it and you are bluffing, hoping I dont have the spare time to read it and find out that it isnt there.

Assume whatever you want, I don't care what you believe.

 

[Steezie]

Assume whatever you want, I don't care what you believe.

Oh please, seriously, spare me this blasé crap. If you really didn't care you wouldn't even BE here.

 

[joebudda]

Oh please, seriously, spare me this blasé crap. If you really didn't care you wouldn't even BE here.

Once again I am not here to please you.

I wouldn't assume you were here for me, that would just be arrogance.