Building 7 . . .

[Quag]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

I know.
I know.
That doesn't prove it was fires.
No, but what was unique about it's construction??
Is this an haiku??
You say I have no evidence....lol

Bolded is you admitting you have no evidence

I suppose logical is stating that fires existed therefore it was fires.
Again, you are making stuff up.

Where do I claim it HAD TO BE A CD??

I think you should read what I say, instead of adding your own conjecture.

So if it wasn't CD and wasn't fires, what in Stundie land was it?
Because there is ONLY evidence for fires

 

[Quag]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

You are making stuff up which I haven't said.

OK if it wasn't fires and wasn't CD what was it Stundie?

Oh dear! Faulty logic and absurdity alert!

You initially said..If a man suddenly collapses and dies after a loud bang is heard and there is a hole through his body but no bullet is found is that evidence that he wasnt shot? Would you assume it was a heart attack or posion that killed him because you didnt find a bullet?

I asked you how do you establish that he wasn't shot after the heart attack or being poisoned?


If you do not know if it was a bullet, then you would check to see if the cause of death was something else.

FAULTY logic alert!!!!!
Stundie in my scenario there is no other evidence but a loud bang and a hole in the dead guy appearing as he collapses. Yes if in an autopsy you find evidence of poison, heart attack it should be looked at
But this scenario reflects WTC7 you have NO evidence of anything other than the man being shot (fires at WTC7) yet you jump to the conclusion of poison or heat attack and dismiss the man having being shot because the bullet isn't found
No amount of reason will convince you it wasn't poison or heart attack unless you see the bullet and lets be honest even then you would just claim it was a different bullet because you didn't use logic or evidence to come to your poison/heart attack opinion.

 

[gamolon]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Evidence of the heat affected steel.

Fires being unfought for 7 hours is not evidence that the steel was effected. It is evidence that the fires were unfought for 7 hours.

Nobody is doubting that unfought fires existed, unfought fires also existed in WTC 5 & 6.

Are you suggesting that explosives can't cause a building to become unstable? Cause groaning and creaking? Or cause a building to lean?

You seem to believe that fires and fires only explains all of this but explosives doesn't.

Explosives can make a building unstable, see any failed demolition.
Buildings groaning and creaking can happen without the need of a fire, due to the weakening of structure and can be heard in building that are about to fall from earthquakes. This could be easily acheived by weakening the same parts of the structure with explosives.
Buildings can be made to lean from explosives, just cut enough columns to weaken it, just not to the point of failure.

Well there isn't any solid proof of explosives but they aren't going to be found realisitically.
That maybe the most logical conclusion to draw according to you, but there were reports of explosions throughout the day.
Obviously we haven't considered this yet.

No, you believe it is evidence for that support the structure being effected by fires, but I would argue that it doesn't conclusively prove it was fires seeing as explosives could technically and theoretically achieve all of these things.

You are assuming it is fires and I really don't have any problem with that because it could be the fires. However, this still doesn't rule out explosives.

I agree with all of the above Stundie.

The only thing I am saying is that FIRE was proven to have existed. Explosives are NOT proven. IS it possible that explosives can produce all the characteristics seen and heard above? Absolutely.

The bottom line at this point is that fires are the MORE PROBABLE CAUSE because there is PROOF they EXISTED and can also cause everything stated above. There is no proof of EXPLOSIVES as of yet.

What if the police found a dead body that had a caved in skull do to being hit by something. You say it was a crowbar to the head and I say it was a baseball bat to the head. The police found a baseball bat at the scene. What is more likely that instrument used to hit the person in the head at that point. A crowbar or a baseball bat.

The baseball bat because one was found on the scene. Does that prove it wasn't the crowbar? Not yet. There is further investigation need. Possible blood on the bat matching the deceased. Maybe the find a crowbar also later. The point is, until further investigation is done, the baseball bat is MORE LIKELY the weapon.

 

[gamolon]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Evidence of the heat affected steel.

Fires being unfought for 7 hours is not evidence that the steel was effected. It is evidence that the fires were unfought for 7 hours.


Nobody is doubting that unfought fires existed, unfought fires also existed in WTC 5 & 6.

Are you suggesting that explosives can't cause a building to become unstable? Cause groaning and creaking? Or cause a building to lean?

You seem to believe that fires and fires only explains all of this but explosives doesn't.

Explosives can make a building unstable, see any failed demolition.
Buildings groaning and creaking can happen without the need of a fire, due to the weakening of structure and can be heard in building that are about to fall from earthquakes. This could be easily acheived by weakening the same parts of the structure with explosives.
Buildings can be made to lean from explosives, just cut enough columns to weaken it, just not to the point of failure.

Well there isn't any solid proof of explosives but they aren't going to be found realisitically.
That maybe the most logical conclusion to draw according to you, but there were reports of explosions throughout the day.
Obviously we haven't considered this yet.

No, you believe it is evidence for that support the structure being effected by fires, but I would argue that it doesn't conclusively prove it was fires seeing as explosives could technically and theoretically achieve all of these things.

You are assuming it is fires and I really don't have any problem with that because it could be the fires. However, this still doesn't rule out explosives.

All this evidence of explosions being heard and recorded on videos and you saying it was from explosives. Now, in the other thread, you say it was some form of thermite. Thermite isn't an explosives as Jonathan Cole has stated in his video. Then you go on to say that thermite is relatively quite. I agree and I heard no EXPLOSIONS in Cole's video.

Can you address the EXPLOSIVES and EXPLOSIONS versus RELATIVELY QUIET THERMITE in the other thread please.

 

[gamolon]

Are you ever going to address the Newton's Laws question I had for you or are you going to continue to ignore it?

I guess this is how you handle a debate right camlok? Ignore people asking you for an explanation, but you demand an explanation from everyone else.

 

[stundie]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

I agree with all of the above Stundie.

The only thing I am saying is that FIRE was proven to have existed. Explosives are NOT proven. IS it possible that explosives can produce all the characteristics seen and heard above? Absolutely.

The bottom line at this point is that fires are the MORE PROBABLE CAUSE because there is PROOF they EXISTED and can also cause everything stated above. There is no proof of EXPLOSIVES as of yet.

I'm sorry but I don't see a correlation between a probable cause just because something existed.

What if the police found a dead body that had a caved in skull do to being hit by something. You say it was a crowbar to the head and I say it was a baseball bat to the head. The police found a baseball bat at the scene. What is more likely that instrument used to hit the person in the head at that point. A crowbar or a baseball bat.

The baseball bat because one was found on the scene. Does that prove it wasn't the crowbar? Not yet. There is further investigation need. Possible blood on the bat matching the deceased. Maybe the find a crowbar also later. The point is, until further investigation is done, the baseball bat is MORE LIKELY the weapon.

The baseball bat might be suspect No1 but if that was as far as the investigation went, it would be easy to get away with murder.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

What if fires in offices resulted in large structural pieces being blown hundreds of feet laterally, and the authorities said there was no evidence of explosives?

Who is kidding whom, and are the authorities in denial, or just covering something up?

 

[gamolon]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

What if fires in offices resulted in large structural pieces being blown hundreds of feet laterally, and the authorities said there was no evidence of explosives?

And those large structural pieces couldn't have ended up where they were do to a parabolic trajectory due to toppling from a high elevation?

You have evidence of these "large structural pieces" actually being ejected?

I expect more silence from you just like camlok when asked hard questions.

 

[gamolon]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

The baseball bat might be suspect No1 but if that was as far as the investigation went, it would be easy to get away with murder.

Bingo!

That's what the other thread is about Stundie. As of this particular time in that other thread, FIRE is "suspect No.1 ". Why? because we have proof of fire and NO PROOF of explosives. Which is why I keep saying, let's move on to your other pieces of evidence that you think supports explosives and see if it shifts explosives into the "suspect No. 1" slot.

We are just at the beginning of the discussion are we not? I have said many times that fire is not 100% proven to be the cause for the collapse. I am trying to compare the evidence you have that tends to make you believe explosives/thermite over fire. I don't see it yet. Especially when you admit there is NO PROOF of explosives. Are explosives possible? Absolutely! So let's continue the discussion in the other thread.

 

[gamolon]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

The baseball bat might be suspect No1 but if that was as far as the investigation went, it would be easy to get away with murder.

Just to reiterate. What I put in red in your above quote is key here. Our "investigation" isn't stopping. We are going to discuss further evidence as time goes by and see what happens.

 

[Bodi]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Absolutely, as explained above. Which shows that you are a science denier.

Oh please...

 

[camlok]

There are so many total impossibilities in the US government official conspiracy theory and this can be seen by the absolute dearth of evidence for that same wacky USGOCT.

No one has ever provided any scientific evidence for the USGOCT. It's only flim flam men like Popular Mechanics, and three foreign tricksters whose "evidence" can't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The US government's flim flam scientists bogus study has never been peer reviewed. If something isn't peer reviewed it isn't science. Why are there so many flim flam supporters of all the USGOCT flim flam "scientists"?

Take the 47 minute challenge, those of you who aren't flim flam folks who support the US government flim flam conspiracy theory.

You have nothing to lose but your ignorance and nothing is better for a body than remaining in a state of abysmal ignorance. Americans are not supposed to be supporters of abysmal ignorance.

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

And those large structural pieces couldn't have ended up where they were do to a parabolic trajectory due to toppling from a high elevation?

You have evidence of these "large structural pieces" actually being ejected?

Where is your evidence to show that large structural pieces can travel up to 500 feet away without explosives? Gravity only works vertically, never horizontally. Even young children know this.

“Given the fact that a steel-framed high-rise building has never come down without the use of explosives, those who claim this happened on 9/11 should provide some evidence that such an event would even be possible. There could be no historical evidence, of course, because such a collapse would be unprecedented” David Ray Griffin

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Oh great. Another vid post from camlock. A youtube vid from May 16, 2015 - Uploaded by LibertyDefender84.

For camlock it must be new. For those who really have researched 9/11 from multiple sources saw the vid back in 2015.

Interesting how some degrade the scientist and researches who conducted the WTC7 investigation and analysis.


http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

For those who really have researched 9/11 from multiple sources saw the vid back in 2015.

Why haven't you people "who really have researched 9/11 from multiple sources" ever brought it forward so we could all discuss it, mike? Why haven't you USOCT conspiracy theorists ever provided any evidence for the impossible USOCT?

Interesting how some degrade the scientist and researches who conducted the WTC7 investigation and analysis.

They, NIST "scientists" "degrade" themselves. Information that is hidden from public view is not science. It is propaganda put out by totalitarian governments interested in hiding their war crimes and terrorism.

NIST has never been peer reviewed so it is not science. Surely you USOCT conspiracy theorists can grasp that simple fact.

Interesting how you defend dishonest, unscrupulous people like that.

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Why haven't you people "who really have researched 9/11 from multiple sources" ever brought it forward so we could all discuss it, mike? Why haven't you USOCT conspiracy theorists ever provided any evidence for the impossible USOCT?



They, NIST "scientists" "degrade" themselves. Information that is hidden from public view is not science. It is propaganda put out by totalitarian governments interested in hiding their war crimes and terrorism.
(pure opinion on your part).

NIST has never been peer reviewed so it is not science. Surely you USOCT conspiracy theorists can grasp that simple fact.
(false statements).

Interesting how you defend dishonest, unscrupulous people like that.

(sorry, but you are so off base in the "dishonest" statement that is laughable.)


Why don't you answer questions asked of you?

Hulsey promised his research would be totally open and made public.
"The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow."

Provide the link to his data he used? Where can one download the software he used?


How about Mark Basile's dust study? He was going to send the chips off the an independent lab. Has he done so? What has he used the money for?
"Mark Basile is still working on his red/gray chip study, and we are expecting an update about 6 weeks from now, in September 2017." , Well it is mid October and no results.

Noted" I did not say Hulsey or Basille are dishonest or unscrupulous people. One does not need to do personal attacks to disagree with the findings.

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

(sorry, but you are so off base in the "dishonest" statement that is laughable.)

NIST, the US government, the 911 Ommission Commission and the USGOCT conspiracy theorists are ALL terribly dishonest.

John the gross liar Gross categorically denied molten steel when he himself was photographed touching/holding the end of a previously molten/vaporized beam/girder.

NIST lied about WTC7 free fall. NIST lied about shear studs, composite floors, web stiffners, NIST has not revealed their data, which illustrates that they are not scientists, they are US government shills. NIST lied about much more.

Why do you USGOCT conspiracy theorists avidly support such dishonest people?


Why don't you answer questions asked of you?

Because you USGOCT conspiracy theorists ask the most inane, ridiculous questions imaginable.
You are all only interested in distraction and diversion. None of you are interested in furthering the truth. The entire group of USGOCT conspiracy theorists is only interested in burying the truth.

Address all the issues, answer all the questios that show YOUR goofy USOCT is a total fraud, a lie from beginning to end.

Hulsey promised his research would be totally open and made public. Provide the link to his data he used? Where can one download the software he used?

Here are more of the same useless, inane questions.

Are you really as helpless as you make yourself out to be? Just call the UofA-F and ask Professor Hulsey yourself.

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Here are more of the same useless, inane questions.

Are you really as helpless as you make yourself out to be? Just call the UofA-F and ask Professor Hulsey yourself.

Yes, cam your post are all the same.

Great idea cam. The response to any future remarks or questions you have will be: camlock "Are you really as helpless as you make yourself out to be? Just call (fill in the blank) to get your answers".

By your response it is clear you have not read and studied the final NIST report. I provided the links and vids for you to watch. Guess you don't want to learn.

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Yes, cam your post are all the same.

Great idea cam. The response to any future remarks or questions you have will be: camlock "Are you really as helpless as you make yourself out to be? Just call (fill in the blank) to get your answers".

By your response it is clear you have not read and studied the final NIST report. I provided the links and vids for you to watch. Guess you don't want to learn.

Your signature line says you can explain, mike, but you never explain anything, none of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists can explain anything. All you folks do is ask inane, diversionary questions.

Where is your evidence to show that large structural pieces can travel up to 500 feet, horizontally, away without explosives? Gravity only works vertically, never horizontally. Even young children know this.

NIST lied its ass off and here you are being dishonest again, not addressing these lies. NIST, the branch that carried out this fraud, is not made up of scientists. It was made up of US government shills.

And the USGOCT conspiracy theorists shill for NIST and the US government. What part don't you grasp that they lied their asses off, about everything?

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Your signature line says you can explain, mike, but you never explain anything, none of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists can explain anything. All you folks do is ask inane, diversionary questions.

Where is your evidence to show that large structural pieces can travel up to 500 feet, horizontally, away without explosives? Gravity only works vertically, never horizontally. Even young children know this.

NIST lied its ass off and here you are being dishonest again, not addressing these lies. NIST, the branch that carried out this fraud, is not made up of scientists. It was made up of US government shills.

And the USGOCT conspiracy theorists shill for NIST and the US government. What part don't you grasp that they lied their asses off, about everything?

Another lie on your part.

I can't help it when you do not go to the links I provide.
Are you really as helpless as you make yourself out to be? Just call (fill in the blank) to get your answers".

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Bush/Cheney lied.

“Given how disastrous the official account has been for America and the world in general, perhaps some newspapers or TV networks will have the courage to point out that the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11, like the Bush-Cheney argument for attacking Iraq, was a lie.”David Ray Griffin

NIST lied.

"As with the numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the Twin Towers, the destruction of Building 7 quickly disappeared from media coverage. It is clear, Griffin asserts, that Bush and Cheney did not want this subject to get any public attention for one simple reason: While the Twin Towers’ destruction could be pinned on the two plane impacts, there was nothing that could be used to even attempt to explain how this 47-story skyscraper was completely destroyed in under seven seconds."

AE911Truth ? Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - Griffin Takes On Bush, Cheney, and the ?Miraculous? Destruction of the WTC Towers


The 911 Commission lied.

"In fact, the chapter begins by reminding us of the extraordinary fact that Building 7 is not even mentioned in the body of the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report. This fact was also probed by the CBC’s Solomon in the Hamilton interview mentioned above. At first Hamilton said that Building 7 was included, but, when challenged, he conceded that it may not have been, although he claimed it had at least been “reviewed” by the commission."

Ibid.

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Interesting review of DRG work.


http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

"The 9/11 Commission did not include any discussion of WTC 7, as Dr. Griffin notes, but this should come as no surprise. The 9/11 Commission Report is not an engineering report, and its entire commentary on the mechanics of the attacks themselves spans a mere 57 pages. Its primary purpose is to discuss the criminal actors and planning that led to the attacks, not the physical damage that resulted. The purpose of the Commission, clearly stated at the outset, was as follows:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. [6]
"

 

[Quag]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Another lie on your part.

Lies and insults are all he has

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Interesting review of DRG work.


http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

"The 9/11 Commission did not include any discussion of WTC 7, as Dr. Griffin notes, but this should come as no surprise.
"

Good dog almighty, mike brings out a guy from 2007 whose expertise is "vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft.

A guy who ducked and ran just like all the USGOCT conspiracy theorists.

The 911 Ommission Commission did not discuss WTC7 for the simple reason that it was NOT an independent commission. Why do you advance such patent lies, mike?

It was a set up to fail investigation, totally organized, run, coached by Zelikow, a Bush insider/gross liar just like all the other Bush/Cheney gross liars. Why wouldn't you have presented these facts, mike, when you make yourself out to be interested in the truth - which is, and has always been a total fiction. USGOCT conspiracy theorists have only one motive, to disseminate all the distractions/lies/diversions possible to obscure the facts that there were no Arab hijackers.

Why are such people so comfortable with supporting such known gross liars/war criminals/terrorists/baby killers/... ?

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Quote Originally Posted by camlok View Post
Your signature line says you can explain, mike, but you never explain anything, none of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists can explain anything. All you folks do is ask inane, diversionary questions.

Where is your evidence to show that large structural pieces can travel up to 500 feet, horizontally, away without explosives? Gravity only works vertically, never horizontally. Even young children know this.

NIST lied its ass off and here you are being dishonest again, not addressing these lies. NIST, the branch that carried out this fraud, is not made up of scientists. It was made up of US government shills.

And the USGOCT conspiracy theorists shill for NIST and the US government. What part don't you grasp that they lied their asses off, about everything?

===============

Another lie on your part.

You didn't address anything specifically, mike, you just pulled off a regular mike distraction/diversion. What was the "lie"?

I can't help it when you do not go to the links I provide.
Are you really as helpless as you make yourself out to be? Just call (fill in the blank) to get your answers".

You are self-describing again. You haven't got the know how or the smarts to explain anything which is why you posts are only diversions and distractions.