In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
"Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
Who's manufacturing mysterious forces?
If I'm not mistaken that's the report in dispute. Hence no reference to actually bothering to check for explosive residues
Sure, but if any explosion of a relevant size would have been heard, and no such explosion was heard, then there isn't really any question after that, is there?
Yeah, there's lots of questions as to what that would sound like and whether the same report that clearly lied/omitted/misstated/screwed up (whatever you want to call it) about other aspects would be trustworthy.
People definitely reported hearing explosions as well, but in the chaos that's not the leg I would stand on to prove there's nothing suspicious about the many other problems in the report anyway.
Out of curiosity:
What do YOU think happened to building 7? Who blew it up and why? And while we're here, do you think the two towers fell from getting hit by planes, or were there other factors there, too?
On January 26 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote: People definitely reported hearing explosions as well
Source this.
Keep in mind the sheer chaos of the event and the general unreliability of eye witness testimony that there were or weren't explosions when and how many and why it's already protocol not to rely on eye witness testimony alone and run tests that weren't run for no determinable reason.
I obviously haven't watched all 30 minutes but as far as I can tell that seems to be all about the Twin Towers rather than WTC7, which was the subject of debate.
This is just a thinly veiled argument that is was an inside job and a justification to go to war. Lets just cut through the bullshit and get to home base on this one.
"Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
Who's manufacturing mysterious forces?
If I'm not mistaken that's the report in dispute. Hence no reference to actually bothering to check for explosive residues
Sure, but if any explosion of a relevant size would have been heard, and no such explosion was heard, then there isn't really any question after that, is there?
Yeah, there's lots of questions as to what that would sound like and whether the same report that clearly lied/omitted/misstated/screwed up (whatever you want to call it) about other aspects would be trustworthy.
People definitely reported hearing explosions as well, but in the chaos that's not the leg I would stand on to prove there's nothing suspicious about the many other problems in the report anyway.
Out of curiosity:
What do YOU think happened to building 7? Who blew it up and why? And while we're here, do you think the two towers fell from getting hit by planes, or were there other factors there, too?
Looks like controlled demolition according to the most sensible information I've seen. Who and why is a whole other ball of wax I don't see a need to speculate on until we know why there were these failures in the investigation and we know what actually happened structurally.
I don't rule out mundane explanations like the building wasn't actually built to code/specs and it failed because of human error/corruption/incompetence that predated the whole 9/11 thing or whatever if that's what you're getting at though.
On January 26 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote: People definitely reported hearing explosions as well
Source this.
Keep in mind the sheer chaos of the event and the general unreliability of eye witness testimony that there were or weren't explosions when and how many and why it's already protocol not to rely on eye witness testimony alone and run tests that weren't run for no determinable reason.
I obviously haven't watched all 30 minutes but as far as I can tell that seems to be all about the Twin Towers rather than WTC7, which was the subject of debate.
On January 26 2018 09:27 WolfintheSheep wrote: 2018 and 9/11 truthers are still being entertained.
Yep. The sad truth of it all is that people still engaged with these bad faith arguments.
Yeah, well, I'm a bit of a sucker.
Several refer to an explosion at WTC 7 or well after the planes hit and so on, but I'd reiterate that eyewitness testimony about whether they heard explosions, when, how many, and where is about as reliable asking ear witnesses how may shots were fired from each direction in a shoot out .
On January 26 2018 09:39 Plansix wrote: This is just a thinly veiled argument that is was an inside job and a justification to go to war. Lets just cut through the bullshit and get to home base on this one.
Justification to start an opium farm in Afghanistan*
"Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
Who's manufacturing mysterious forces?
If I'm not mistaken that's the report in dispute. Hence no reference to actually bothering to check for explosive residues
Sure, but if any explosion of a relevant size would have been heard, and no such explosion was heard, then there isn't really any question after that, is there?
Yeah, there's lots of questions as to what that would sound like and whether the same report that clearly lied/omitted/misstated/screwed up (whatever you want to call it) about other aspects would be trustworthy.
People definitely reported hearing explosions as well, but in the chaos that's not the leg I would stand on to prove there's nothing suspicious about the many other problems in the report anyway.
Out of curiosity:
What do YOU think happened to building 7? Who blew it up and why? And while we're here, do you think the two towers fell from getting hit by planes, or were there other factors there, too?
Looks like controlled demolition according to the most sensible information I've seen. Who and why is a whole other ball of wax I don't see a need to speculate on until we know why there were these failures in the investigation and we know what actually happened structurally.
I don't rule out mundane explanations like the building wasn't actually built to code/specs and it failed because of human error/corruption/incompetence that predated the whole 9/11 thing or whatever if that's what you're getting at though.
It was an inside job, we get it. You just can't say it because people have gotten banned for floating that conspiracy theory garbage around.
This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
On January 26 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Several refer to an explosion at WTC 7 or well after the planes hit and so on, but I'd reiterate that eyewitness testimony about whether they heard explosions, when, how many, and where is about as reliable asking ear witnesses how may shots were fired from each direction in a shoot out .
Sure, I agree with you that eyewitness testimony is dodgy. Audio and video recordings which clearly did not pick up a 130-140 dB explosion is a different thing entirely.
On January 26 2018 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote: This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
Neither you nor I is a structural engineer (I assume). I can find crackpots in any field of knowledge who'll say any dumb thing and make it sound plausible to the layman. I could probably even find justification to call them an "ever growing community".
Nevertheless the general consensus among experts in the field is that nothing about the collapse of all three towers requires an explanation which is consequentially different from the generally accepted one.
On January 26 2018 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote: This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
On January 26 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Several refer to an explosion at WTC 7 or well after the planes hit and so on, but I'd reiterate that eyewitness testimony about whether they heard explosions, when, how many, and where is about as reliable asking ear witnesses how may shots were fired from each direction in a shoot out .
Sure, I agree with you that eyewitness testimony is dodgy. Audio and video recordings which clearly did not pick up a 130-140 dB explosion is a different thing entirely.
That's how loud a typical DJ system is, considering the massive chaos going on I think it's fair to say it might be difficult to pick up out of the noise. But let's say the isolation's of sound at the time picking up what sound like faint explosions are all conspiracy manufacturing, I've indulged several questions, how about you tell me why you think they avoided basic protocol which would call for testing to look for incendiaries and explosives, claimed they found no evidence without mentioning that, then refused to look once they were confronted?
On January 26 2018 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote: This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
Or the building got hit by a plane and fell down.
7WTC was the one on fire for 7 hours, not the twin towers.
On January 26 2018 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote: This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
Or the building got hit by a plane and fell down.
7WTC was the one on fire for 7 hours, not the twin towers.
That seems to be a good reason to fall over too. Weird things happen to buildings that are on fire for protracted periods of time.
On January 26 2018 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote: This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
Or the building got hit by a plane and fell down.
Now that would be a conspiracy, no one thinks a plane hit building 7
On January 26 2018 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote: This is one reason I don't even speculate on why because even if I specifically say I think it could just be a coverup (or just raw incompetence) of shitty construction and inspections in NYC people will strawman me into a crazy person for having reasonable questions they know they don't have sensible answers to.
Or the building got hit by a plane and fell down.
7WTC was the one on fire for 7 hours, not the twin towers.
That seems to be a good reason to fall over too. Weird things happen to buildings that are on fire for protracted periods of time.
It just became abundantly clear how you are opining without having any idea what we were talking about.
Okay was my day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about?
On January 26 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Several refer to an explosion at WTC 7 or well after the planes hit and so on, but I'd reiterate that eyewitness testimony about whether they heard explosions, when, how many, and where is about as reliable asking ear witnesses how may shots were fired from each direction in a shoot out .
Sure, I agree with you that eyewitness testimony is dodgy. Audio and video recordings which clearly did not pick up a 130-140 dB explosion is a different thing entirely.
That's how loud a typical DJ system is, considering the massive chaos going on I think it's fair to say it might be difficult to pick up out of the noise.
You can think that's fair if you want. It's not.
But let's say the isolation's of sound at the time picking up what sound like faint explosions are all conspiracy manufacturing
Insofar as people claim they caused the collapse they are. Straight up.
I've indulged several questions, how about you tell me why you think they avoided basic protocol which would call for testing to look for incendiaries and explosives, claimed they found no evidence without mentioning that, then refused to look once they were confronted?
I only have the word of you and your selection of crackpots for what "basic protocol" actually is and that no testing occured. I can well imagine that in an instance where there is plenty of documentary evidence as to the chain of events they would skip meticulous testing for things that obviously didn't happen.
As for refusing to look later I expect they just couldn't be bothered dealing with the headlines which even agreeing to look would cause.
On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote: Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about?
It is, and that's a fair summary.
It started as a GH conspiracy that the opium in Afghanistan is a CIA plot to make cash, and then the obvious followup that 9/11 was an inside job to justify starting a war to establish said opium farms.
EPT
