The thing is, you can always contrive a controlled demolition scenario that simulates the collapse by fire. Instead of saying "the fire caused the weakening of columns A,B,C..., the unseating of joint X, and inevitable collapse", you can simply replace the word "fire" with "thermite", and you have the same result.It seems to me that the burden of physical or mathematical "proof" is on those who are proposing an unprecedented or almost miraculous event. But if an incredible and almost miraculous event of this sort can take place then it seems to me that people should figure out ways to engineer it in order to save money on explosives and so forth. On a side note, you seem to be blaming me personally for the fact that the official story about office fires and so forth is really quite incredible.
Unfortunately I have to get back to work. But here's an interesting idea, what would the physics and numbers look like that would "prove" to you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Have you provided them and included the numbers in your explanatory framework somewhere? After all, it wouldn't make any sense for me to provide numbers for anything but the official story if you're just going to move goal posts later. In other words, do rigorously specified "goal posts" of physics and math in your mind really exist in the first place? If it was a controlled demolition, what evidence and proof would convince you of it?
Couldn't you always have a fire scenario that simulates collapse by controlled demolition? Although it would seem to me that the key difference would be that you're talking about an unprecedented event, therefore the burden of proof is on you with respect to providing the math and physics and the evidence that an almost miraculous event took place.The thing is, you can always contrive a controlled demolition scenario that simulates the collapse by fire.
Here is my attitude about thermite: Instead of saying "the fire caused the weakening of columns A,B,C..., the unseating of joint X, and inevitable collapse", you can simply replace the word "fire" with "thermite"...
Indeed. So that's why it's important to ask someone who believes in what amounts to bunk what evidence or mathematical and physical proof and so forth would supposedly falsify their theory. Because everything else is just going to give rise to a more "debunk-resistant" theory, depending on the level of their epistemic inertia (for whatever reason).It's an unfortunate result of debunking that it gives rise to "debunk-resistant" forms of the theory. With chemtrails, when it's pointed out that normal contrails can persist and spread, the theory mutates to include short trails and invisible trails as being chemtrails.
Anything... could you be more specific? So far it would seem that you're saying that anything specified in the NIST report is a valid theory, while everything outside of it or not even mentioned in it is bunk.....anything that does not fit the NIST report.
No, absolutely not. This is what a controlled demolition looks (and sounds) like, and there's no way of simulating this with fire.Couldn't you always have a fire scenario that simulates collapse by controlled demolition?
Why? You asked what I would considered evidence of controlled demolition, and I said anything that could not have been caused by the fire. It does not matter what it actually is.Anything... could you be more specific?
There might be, imagine if finding a way of simulating it is just a matter of imagination and telling some intelligent people to run some simulations to show that it's "possible." Not that it's even likely, just that it's "possible" according to their imaginations or way of simulating things to come to the only conclusion that will allow them to keep receiving a pay check.This is what a controlled demolition looks (and sounds) like, and there's no way of simulating this with fire.
And the fires are normal office fires?...anything that could not have been caused by the fire.
My personal level of epistemic inertia has little to do with it. If a steel frame building collapsed due to office fires then the event is, indeed, incredible... according to external sources and precedents that have little to do with me. It would truly be incredible in the sense that it would be unprecedented, almost a miraculous coincidence, etc. (Too bad for the military industrial complex and its banksters that the third plane never got there. Because then they could hire people to imagine/simulate that the jet fuel did it all and they could have included WTC 7 in the best simulations that money could buy too.)Perhaps you could explain why you are so incredulous about the observed fires causing the collapse?
This is worth revisiting because you say "could not possibly" or something along those lines when trying to demonstrate that your theory is falsifiable but ironically that's the language of unfalsifiable theories. Not to mention that such reasoning begins to give you license to imagine/simulate things about columns and so forth instead of beginning with the most likely explanation based on the evidence.You asked what I would considered evidence of controlled demolition, and I said anything that could not have been caused by the fire. It does not matter what it actually is.
Or perhaps it's because they weren't paid to imagine things or create simulations and scenarios with a single endpoint (denial of demolition) in mind.Folks interpreted their fall as a controlled demolition, because that is what had to compare it to.
There are plenty of controlled demolitions with a lot of differences between them, depending on the professionalism and so on of those who did it.Once you stop and look at a controlled demo, next to the towers falling, one can see a lot of differences.
But it does. You keep making statements implying there was not enough fire to cause the building to fail in the way it did. You even make jokes about it (exploding donuts). But you don't back it up with anything other than incredulity.My personal level of epistemic inertia has little to do with it.
A) Barry Jennings... RIP, the timeline is important, isn't it? Let alone the premature announcements...*So the obvious inference is that the fires caused the collapse.
Or perhaps you see a lot of otherwise intelligence people working to imagine things or create simulations to support the only possible conclusion that they could come to no matter what the most likely explanation for the evidence was.If we then read the NIST report we see lots of analysis of the extent of the fire, and the potential damage to connections and beams, comparisons to other building fires, and analysis of the sequence of the collapse.
The documented fact that Israelis were caught with explosives and so forth doesn't fit with the rather imaginative theory that fire caused the collapse.All of that fits the theory that the fire caused the collapse.
It's not my fault that the things that people are willing to imagine are often a joke. In any event, unfalsifiable theories usually begin with "could not possibly" and so forth... to borrow your unfalsifiable logic: "If you could show me something that could not possibly be caused by a controlled demolition, then that would falsify that theory. And by could not possibly, I mean whatever I can possibly imagine." Etc. There's a difference between imagining things and evidence.But you come along and say "no no, exploding donuts, lol".
The exploding donuts?So which explanation do I go with?
Further evidence of foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse was provided by premature news reports, in which this building's collapse was announced before it actually occurred. These reports evidently began "at about 4:15," when CNN's Aaron Brown said: "We are getting information now that... Building 7... has either collapsed or is collapsing." This was over an hour before the building actually did collapse (at 5:21). Additional premature announcements came from the BBC. 4:53pm, the BBC's Radio Five Live said it had reports "that another large building has collapsed just over an hour ago." At 4:54, the BBC's domestic television news channel announced the collapse. Then at about 5:10, BBC World repeated this announcement. It even provided an explanation of why the building had collapsed, saying: "[T]his wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." Finally, at 5:14, BBC reporter Jane Standley was seen announcing the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building—the other name for WTC 7—while it could still be seen standing in the background.'*In February 2007, a video containing some of this news footage, especially of the BBC's premature reporting, was placed on the internet. After it had evoked an enormous amount of discussion and "lots of emails" to the BBC, Richard Porter, the head of news for BBC World, responded on his blog, writing:We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.... If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error—no more than that.This was a manifestly inadequate response (as shown by viewers' responses to it, which numbered almost 600 by the end of 2007). It was obvious that the BBC's announcement was "an error." The question was: How could such an error—announcing the collapse almost 30 minutes before it happened—have occurred?[...]...why would such agencies have been reporting the collapse approximately 30 or even—in the case of CNN-60 minutes before it happened? Porter's only explanation was to "point to [the] confusing and chaotic situation on the ground." This second blog entry by Porter evoked over 600 responses, most of which found his explanation inadequate.Porter could have offered a somewhat plausible explanation by suggesting that the rumor that WTC 7 was going to collapse, which had been circulating for several hours, at some point became changed, through misunderstanding, into the rumor that it had already collapsed.If we accept this explanation, which the BBC could have offered, we might conclude that the premature announcement of the collapse by the news media adds nothing to what we have already established, namely, that Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management had spread the word several hours in advance that WTC 7 was going to collapse.Even with that interpretation, however, the premature announcements were not insignificant, because they revealed in a dramatic and memorable fashion the fact that someone knew in advance that Building 7 was going to collapse. This is important because, given the salient facts—that WTC 7 had not been hit by a plane, that no steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed because of fire alone, that WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors, and that some of the other still-standing WTC buildings had suffered far worse damage—there should have been no reason to expect WTC 7 to collapse. (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin: 114-116)
Why was there no actual recorded audio of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of WTC7?I was just watching that video about the explosions and all the eye witness testimony of explosions that sound just like those in controlled demolitions. Your video of controlled demolitions reminded me of it.
Okay then, show me some evidence of something that's at least a small bit inconsistent with a collapse due to fire.It's not my fault that the things that people are willing to imagine are often a joke. In any event, unfalsifiable theories usually begin with "could not possibly" and so forth... to borrow your unfalsifiable logic: "If you could show me something that could not possibly be caused by a controlled demolition, then that would falsify that theory. And by could not possibly, I mean whatever I can possibly imagine." Etc. There's a difference between imagining things and evidence.
Sounds to me like there is one a few seconds in, even with that distorted and poor quality audio.Why are there no explosions audible here?
What evidence have you shown for the only possibility that you can imagine despite the evidence and despite the fact that your imaginary hypothesis doesn't line up with documented evidence that has been unearthed due to FOI requests and so on (e.g. Israelis found with explosive residues in vans* and building passes and maps of the area... not to mention $4,000 in their shoes and tickets to leave the country within the week... etc.etc.).Okay then, show me some evidence of something that's at least a small bit inconsistent with a collapse due to fire.
Just one? One that sounds more like wind on the microphone?Sounds to me like there is one a few seconds in, even with that distorted and poor quality audio.
You keep mentioning the office fires. It was a bit more than office fires. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, there were two large planes that were full of fuel, in the case of WTC 7, it was also a case of flaming parts buildings 1 and 2 falling onto it. Maybe it was the imaginary incendiary donuts, however I don't think you could provide proof of them.My personal level of epistemic inertia has little to do with it. If a steel frame building collapsed due to office fires then the event is, indeed, incredible..
Do you think these Israelis wired the entire building with explosives that morning?D) People heard the detonations and there were Israelis arrested on the day of the attacks with explosives in their vans, etc.
And yet you imagine exploding donuts. . .Or perhaps you see a lot of otherwise intelligence people working to imagine things or create simulations to support the only possible conclusion that they could come to no matter what the most likely explanation for the evidence was.
Or perhaps it's because they weren't paid to imagine things or create simulations and scenarios with a single endpoint (denial of demolition) in mind.
There are plenty of controlled demolitions with a lot of differences between them, depending on the professionalism and so on of those who did it.
Right. This is a great point — cui bono from a supposed controlled demolition of WTC-7 hours after the fact? Some kind of icing on the cake.I am not being paid and WTC7 looked like a collapsing building.
I don't see any reason to secretly demo WTC7 in the first place. The building had no more importance than WTC 4, 5, and 6 had. The collapse of the building was a footnote on the day, nothing more. The collapse of WTC7 did not result in the war in Afghanistan or anything else that came after.
If the building could be demoed on short notice, there was no reason not to announce it. David Chandler in his audio analysis youtube that you posted, makes some plot out of the fact that it was known for hours that WTC7 was expected to fall. He claims the fire department was used- no the fire department decided it was too dangerous to fight the fire. There was no set up, no cover story, just Chandler's active imagination.
The simple fact is that it doesn't matter to anything whether WTC7 collapsed or not. Personally what i remember about that day is waking up to the radio talking about the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, then turning on the TV just after WTC2 had fallen. Then less than half an hour later i watched WTC1 on live TV as it collapsed. I am sure i saw a replay of it, but i don't even recall if i saw WTC7 collapse live on TV.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|NY Times Article about YouTube CT Study||General Discussion||2|
|Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"?||Contrails and Chemtrails||8|
|Excellent video of vortices and aerodynamic contrails||Contrails and Chemtrails||10|
|Russian DashCam 'Explosion'||General Discussion||6|
|New Video-Series on YouTube: "Chemtrails DEBUNKED - Aluminum Edition"||Contrails and Chemtrails||0|