Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

The dane didn't seem all that credible too me. He seems to state that nano-thermite can be made into an explosive with additives, and then goes on to speak of it as an explosive the rest of the interview without stating that said additives were found in the thermite from ground zero. Further more he seems way to certain of the implications of this and goes on to state that this means all three of the WTC buildings were brought down by thermite. Also he claims that everything but the steel frame of the building was pulverized, which is plainly wrong. Of course this is just a TV interview and judgement should be based on the contents of the research paper, but on the face of it I find him untrustworthy.

Originally Posted by khh

The dane didn't seem all that credible too me. He seems to state that nano-thermite can be made into an explosive with additives, and then goes on to speak of it as an explosive the rest of the interview without stating that said additives were found in the thermite from ground zero. Further more he seems way to certain of the implications of this and goes on to state that this means all three of the WTC buildings were brought down by thermite. Also he claims that everything but the steel frame of the building was pulverized, which is plainly wrong. Of course this is just a TV interview and judgement should be based on the contents of the research paper, but on the face of it I find him untrustworthy.

Quite fair enough, and I don't feel anyone should take him completely at face value. I believe, like you said, that the conclusions put forth are at least credible enough to be investigated. IF WTC7 was brought down by explosives, is it not within the realm of possibility that the others could have been as well? What I have a problem with, is when the conversations tend to end at "well, those are just allegations", as if those (often credible) allegations have 0 evidence to support them and - more dangerously - don't even warrant the type of actual investigation that is performed on any other crime, by rule of thumb.

What we know, as point of fact, is that the West has ample motive for either staging this type of attack, or allowing it to happen. I would absolutely love to see someone try to refute that. That point, alone, implies that any call for investigation - no matter who is making the call - is a little more than 'crackpot paranoia'. In any other situation, it would be par for the course.

I'd like to concur with Jookia; this topic is obviously a very poignant one to Americans and either side tends to get rather upset and nasty in these conversations. It's not a passion of mine either, so I'll just step out and leave the people who spend time talking about this to hopefully have a measured conversation.

Originally Posted by cmind

WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons". The real question is how did that paperwork get so lost that the government is now denying the demolition?

I hope you're not basing your argument on what some anchorwoman said with no context other than a vague referral to "safety reasons."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I hope you're not basing your argument on what some anchorwoman said with no context other than a vague referral to "safety reasons."

Hmm. Let's avoid confusion. What do you think my argument is?

Originally Posted by mcwillis

There are over 1000 experts in the field of engineering and architecture demanding a new investigation as to how that building collapsed clearly for safety reasons so that they can build safer buildings in the future. And they all agree that building could not have collapsed due to fire alone. The full length documentary explains far more than the trailer in the OP.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Their wrong. Similar building has collapsed from fire alone.

About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning.

The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said.

A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.

He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collspse'

LOL. The person who said pull was a fire chief... and that was pulling his men out of the building.

God people believe anything they read online nowadays.

Critical thinking much?

Quote Originally Posted by Jookia View Post
Debunking implies the conspiracy story is supported by evidence.
Your post implies there is absolutely no evidence toward there being any kind of conspiracy, which is completely so far from reality that it's actually kind of sad that people are still able to say there is "No Evidence." I can be fine with people saying that there is 'no proof', because that would require that all evidence be completely conclusive. But to say there is absolutely 'no evidence' of any conspiracy is to admit that you (or anyone else making that claim) have simply not been paying attention to anything outside the official story.

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.


P.S. They didn't test the WTC for residue of Cthulhu; perhaps.. he woke from his slumber for a snack?

It could be.. the real conspiracy.. the governments hiding his existence!!

Originally Posted by cmind

Hmm. Let's avoid confusion. What do you think my argument is?

What you said:

WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons".

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.

You can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

P.S. They didn't test the WTC for residue of Cthulhu; perhaps.. he woke from his slumber for a snack?

It could be.. the real conspiracy.. the governments hiding his existence!!

Right, because the feasibility of WTC7 (at the very least) having been brought down by explosives is just equal to the feasibility of the government hiding Cthulhu. Isn't it? I really hope this is not the same type of logic you use in every exchange you make... It's not, is it?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

What you said:

State my argument in your own words.

Originally Posted by cmind

State my argument in your own words.

"I claim WTC 7 was demolished. As evidence, I refer to an anchorwoman's statement."

Would anyone care to explain how explosive residue was found in the rubble without a demolition?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

"I claim WTC 7 was demolished. As evidence, I refer to an anchorwoman's statement."

Nope.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

You can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.

Well you can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.

The difference; you're the one making the claim and I'm the one asking for proof.

Right, because the feasibility of WTC7 (at the very least) having been brought down by explosives is just equal to the feasibility of the government hiding Cthulhu. Isn't it? I really hope this is not the same type of logic you use in every exchange you make... It's not, is it?

Actually it has just about the same feasibility; you and your internet detectives have just as much proof for their being explosives used at WTC7 as I have for Cthulhu destroying WTC7 from the dark nether dream world.

Would anyone care to explain how explosive residue was found in the rubble without a demolition?

It wasn't. You want people to explain something that didn't happen. Don't believe everything you read online.

Um. Lol. So now you're blatantly denying documented evidence just because it was presented via online sources.

I'm afraid you're judging the source of information based on the fact that you don't like the information, but that doesn't make it wrong. Do some reading. Refute these sources for me. I'm curious to see how you could.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...lyCollapse.pdf

Originally Posted by DeathCell

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Their wrong. Similar building has collapsed from fire alone.

We are talking about skyscrapers here and not small paper factories. Look at the image of the inferno below at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel. About 100 feet shorter than WTC 7 and it is still standing perfectly the next day. Skyscrapers are designed far differently to low level buildings such as the paper factory in the UK.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

LOL. The person who said pull was a fire chief... and that was pulling his men out of the building.

God people believe anything they read online nowadays.

Critical thinking much?

Source please?

Silverstein said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT' How does that refer to pulling firefighters out of a building?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.

The full length documentary by the scientists in the OP video are saying that W.T.C. 7 could not have collapsed the way it did as concluded by the official investigating body, N.I.S.T. Instead they collectively say that the most likely explanation, without access to all of the necessary physical evidence, is that it was controlled demolition. The theme of the documentary film, and a lot of people are missing this point, is that if W.T.C building no. 7 was brought down by explosive or incendary devices, they are not pointing the finger at WHO carried out this controlled demolition but why it wasn't investigated as a possible cause of the collapse. They are disturbed that this hypothesis hasn't been examined. However, some of them do say privately outside of this documentary film that they think it was a 'False Flag' attack rather than Al Qaeda members planting the demolition devices.

For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following scientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Below is the Abstract from the paper that these scientists wrote. And just as a point of interest lets take a quick look at the life work of Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones to have an idea of the calibre of these scientists.

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. And finally, a lecturer of physics at Brigham Young university until 2006.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen

Abstract:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'd like to concur with Jookia; this topic is obviously a very poignant one to Americans and either side tends to get rather upset and nasty in these conversations. It's not a passion of mine either, so I'll just step out and leave the people who spend time talking about this to hopefully have a measured conversation.

Its a poingant topic to people from other nationalities too due to the fact that the events of that day have led to two horrendously destructive wars and the loss of civil liberties both in the US and the UK.

I can tell you're going to be a lot of fun.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Well you can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.

The difference; you're the one making the claim and I'm the one asking for proof.

2 Things wrong with this. I've already addressed #1:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Your post implies there is absolutely no evidence toward there being any kind of conspiracy, which is completely so far from reality that it's actually kind of sad that people are still able to say there is "No Evidence." I can be fine with people saying that there is 'no proof', because that would require that all evidence be completely conclusive. But to say there is absolutely 'no evidence' of any conspiracy is to admit that you (or anyone else making that claim) have simply not been paying attention to anything outside the official story.

After which, you (commiting the exact same folly that I've actually highlighted) came in first saying:

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.

Which you then followed up with:

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The difference; you're the one making the claim and I'm the one asking for proof.

*emphasis mine

So, before we get too far into this, why don't we wait until you actually know what it is you are asking for. Evidence or Proof. I'm sure you are aware that there is a difference between the two, one of which I have already stated would be pretty much impossible to provide. If you are simply looking for the other, I (and others) have already posted plenty of it in this thread, which I'm sure you'd be more than willing to dispel. That I would have to repost any of it so soon, in a thread this short, would be a bit much, don't you think?

#2 - You have made a claim. You have claimed (albeit indirectly) that the official story is 100% accurate. The government and their '9/11 Commission' have made the claim, and they have not proven it to be true; in that their claim is riddled with holes, inaccuracies and - in many cases - outright lies. So no, the burden of proof (if we're being technical here), would be for the PowersThatBe to accurately prove their claims of how WTC7 (let alone the other towers) collapsed. This has not been done. What they have done is simply stated the conclusion that WTC collapsed soley from fire and airplane collision, which really offers no feasible explanation (backed by any sort of achitectural precedent that I'm aware of), as to how WTC7 collapsed soley as a result of fire and asymmetrical building damage from falling debris.

So I'm sure you're going to hold them up to the same standard as you're holding little old me. Right?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Actually it has just about the same feasibility; you and your internet detectives have just as much proof for their being explosives used at WTC7 as I have for Cthulhu destroying WTC7 from the dark nether dream world.

I wasn't going to entertain this illogical - and flat out unrealistic - assertion, but I felt highlighting how asinine it really is would do better than just ignoring it completely. So, let's go point for counterpoint on this one:
Pro-explosives point: Buildings are destroyed by demolition often, so as a matter of physics, it is possible.

Pro-explosives point: Explosives actually exist in the real world, to the best of our knowledge, which I don't think you can quite say for Cthulhu.

Your turn.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Don't believe anything you read on the Internet.

So, the takeaway from that statement is that we should believe everything we hear in the Associated Press. Yeah?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

....you and your internet detectives

Speaking of making claims, here's one for you: I'm going to make the claim that a large percentage of your debate rhetoric is going to consist of personal attacks and cutesy little pet names for people who you dismiss as wrong, before you even hear what it is they have to say. How about you prove me wrong, and we discuss the issues like big boys, with no pointed name calling or appeals to ridicule, yeah? Nothing but civil conversation, putting point against point. Not too much to ask, is it?

Or is it?

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Its a poingant topic to people from other nationalities too due to the fact that the events of that day have led to two horrendously destructive wars and the loss of civil liberties both in the US and the UK.

Nope. People in the UK do not care about 9/11 conspiracies. People were moved by the destruction of the Twin Towers and loss of life, but I don't know anybody with real doubts that it was done by radical Muslims. Most are are deeply suspicious of Blair's wars and the lies surrounding them, though.

Originally Posted by Xei

Nope. People in the UK do not care about 9/11 conspiracies. People were moved by the destruction of the Twin Towers and loss of life, but I don't know anybody with real doubts that it was done by radical Muslims. Most are are deeply suspicious of Blair's wars and the lies surrounding them, though.

Well David Shayler, a former MI5 employee, who was sent to prison for blowing the whistle on MI6's botched assasination attempt of Colonel Gadaffi in the 90's is very outspoken here in the UK on 'False Flag' terror events. He has given a number of lectures around the country with his former MI5 partner Annie Machon on the iconsistensies of the official narrative of 9/11. And, they always draw a good crowd when the speak.

Indeed, Tony Blair has to make any public engagements with secrecy now as there is a hardcore group of brits that are determined to harass him and attempt citizen arrest attempts.

It is exciting that Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, has recently announced that he is going to recommend that the International Criminal Court hold a criminal trial into 9/11.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Um. Lol. So now you're blatantly denying documented evidence just because it was presented via online sources.

I'm afraid you're judging the source of information based on the fact that you don't like the information, but that doesn't make it wrong. Do some reading. Refute these sources for me. I'm curious to see how you could.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...lyCollapse.pdf

What's funny is these people supported 9/11 conspiracy theories before any "tests" were conducted.. and none from officially certified debris.. You want to believe what anyone on the internet tells you is true; be my guest.. but no reputable scientist/group supports 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.

We are talking about skyscrapers here and not small paper factories. Look at the image of the inferno below at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel. About 100 feet shorter than WTC 7 and it is still standing perfectly the next day. Skyscrapers are designed far differently to low level buildings such as the paper factory in the UK.

Internet experts on fires and buildings. It's amazing. If this building had a fire and it didn't go down; that isn't evidence that the WTC didn't go down because of fire.. I don't think you understand how evidence works.

Source please?

Silverstein said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT' How does that refer to pulling firefighters out of a building?

I don't know maybe try watching the video/documentary in it's entirety instead of just little clips off the internet telling you what they mean.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-228805.html

Silverstein 2005 "the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building"

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/perso...M-34060-1.html

Where does pull it mean anything to do with explosives? It doesn't in any demolition company in existence.

For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following unscientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'(Now dropped by their publisher) entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Below is the Abstract from the paper that these scientists wrote. And just as a point of interest lets take a quick look at the life work of Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones to have an idea of the calibre of these scientists.

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. And finally, a lecturer of physics at Brigham Young university until 2006.

Anyone on the internet can convince you that it's science; doesn't mean it is.

"Collected by a Manhattan resident"? That is not following scientific procedure.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...l-physics.html

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Look... their publisher dropped them.. I wonder why... LOL

You have made a claim. You have claimed (albeit indirectly) that the official story is 100% accurate.

I made no such claim. I don't need to make claims. You believe everything you read on the internet. You lack evidence or proof. You are repeating the same tired talking points that every conspiracy nut on the internet has uttered a thousand times before. Their has been large buildings that have collapsed from fire alone. Planes flew into WTC.. . It's not impossible, crazy or nuts.. What is crazy; is thermite and our country destroying a center of commerce when we could enter war with far less.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm <--- Read this link. And be debunked

I wasn't going to entertain this illogical - and flat out unrealistic - assertion, but I felt highlighting how asinine it really is would do better than just ignoring it completely. So, let's go point for counterpoint on this one:
Pro-explosives point: Buildings are destroyed by demolition often, so as a matter of physics, it is possible.

Pro-explosives point: Explosives actually exist in the real world, to the best of our knowledge, which I don't think you can quite say for Cthulhu.

Your turn.

Anti-explosives point: Controlled demolitions take hours to set up; and no one noticed that this was done before planes were flown into the twin towers. There was no evidence from any reputable sources for explosives on the scene or in the rubble of WTC7. A well reasoned explanation based on science is available that requires zero explosives. Possible and plausible are two very different things.. anything is "possible" many things aren't plausible.

Pro-Cthulhu point: He must exist. For he has always existed and will always exist.

So, the takeaway from that statement is that we should believe everything we hear in the Associated Press. Yeah?

Nope but believing everything you hear isn't being open minded but just being gullible.

Their is no coherent rhyme or reason to the 9/11 conspiracy theories; thus it wouldn't stand up in any court room.. and that's good enough for me.

Plenty of real conspiracies occurring between our political system and moneyed interest; but go ahead and focus on complete bullshit.

This isn't a big boy discussion. You offer no evidence, no claims, this isn't a spiritual/occult discussion so the unproven has no place.. you are making direct claims about real tangible things and people.. but without evidence.

Internet detectives is the term I give to those who get all their information on conspiracies from the wide internet space and generally all have the same beliefs. I've heard your exact same speech from countless people on forums all over the internet..

The internet is a great tool for self-deception or a great tool for self-growth.. It takes a discerning mind to make progress.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

What's funny is these people supported 9/11 conspiracy theories before any "tests" were conducted.. and none from officially certified debris.. You want to believe what anyone on the internet tells you is true; be my guest.. but no reputable scientist/group supports 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

Just saying.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

What's funny is these people supported 9/11 conspiracy theories before any "tests" were conducted.. and none from officially certified debris.. You want to believe what anyone on the internet tells you is true; be my guest.. but no reputable scientist/group supports 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.

These scientists and engineers have published scientific papers in printed scientific journals and not on websites.

They are reputable scientists and I have cited professor emeritus Steven E. Jones as an example.

It is not officially certified debris because that physical evidence was removed illegally from the crime scene. All of the physical evidence should have been colected, catalogued and kept on U.S. soil as a requirement of U.S. law. These scientists would have thoroughly checked, as best that they could from a scientific standpoint, that the physical evidence that they had in their posession was related in whole to the experiments that they carried out in the scientific paper that I mentioned. These people are not amateurs.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Internet experts on fires and buildings. It's amazing. If this building had a fire and it didn't go down; that isn't evidence that the WTC didn't go down because of fire.. I don't think you understand how evidence works.

Once again these are not armchair, internet experts; they are real-world experts and long standing members of academia. You're missing the point; they collectively agree that fire was extremely unlikely to have been the real cause of the collapse of the building. Some say that it was impossible that fire alone brought down that building. They want a real investigation to find out if it was fire or another reason. If it was fire, they want to be able to study the collapsed steel structure of WTC 7 to understand why their modern engineering techniques have failed and why that building collapsed from a physical & mathematical viewpoint. I have a bachelors degree in engineering so I do undertsand how evidence works.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I don't know maybe try watching the video/documentary in it's entirety instead of just little clips off the internet telling you what they mean.

Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it' [Archive] - JREF Forum

Silverstein 2005 "the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building"

9/11 Debunked_ Larry Silverstein\'s \"Pull-it\" Explained - Larry Silverstein Videos : Firstpost Topic - Page 1

Thanks.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Where does pull it mean anything to do with explosives? It doesn't in any demolition company in existence.

I have checked a lot of resources for that and a found a demolition old-timer that says 'pull' did used to be used half a century ago to describe pulling a building over when doing a demolition. He also stated that it is rarely used these days.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Anyone on the internet can convince you that it's science; doesn't mean it is.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Well I wonder who the contributors and editor of that website are? You are citing nameless experts and as such we don't have any idea of their understanding of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation <--- Read this link and just shut up.

Well I for one am not going to shut up, which is rather rude of you by the way. Your arguments are not baseless, just from a different viewpoint but your arguments in this thread are rather incoherent to say the least.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Anti-explosives point: Controlled demolitions take hours to set up; and no one noticed that this was done before planes were flown into the twin towers. There was no evidence from any reputable sources for explosives on the scene or in the rubble of WTC7. A well reasoned explanation based on science is available that requires zero explosives. Possible and plausible are two very different things.. anything is "possible" many things aren't plausible.

Pro-Explosives Point: George Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the company in charge of security for the WTC, up until 2001. IF there were explosives planted in the buildings, security would conceivably have all access to the building, without sending up any red flags.

Your second 'point' (while cute) is obviously worthless to your argument, and would probably have done your credibility a better service by being completely left out.

Pro-Explosives Point: You talk about how it takes weeks to set up a demolition project. You are talking about the use of industrial-grade explosives, I assume. IF these buildings were to have been taken down as a part of a military false flag operation, there are many other types of explosives that could have been used, most probably of military-grade; some of which can be sprayed on as a foam and set off by radio, eliminating the need for all of the conspicuous wiring used in traditional, industrial demolitions. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that it is plausible

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Nope but believing everything you hear isn't being open minded but just being gullible.

If I believed everything I heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, now would we? (As the official story has been proposed for years, now. Use your head, boy.) The more you keep harping that same sentence (which I'm sure you've parrotted to countless people, so I don't blame you for forming the habit), the more I realize your arguments aren't based on any sort of logic, but on an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into, whenever you talk to anyone who even questions the official 9/11 story. I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more obvious that is going to become to everyone but yourself.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Their is no coherent rhyme or reason to the 9/11 conspiracy theories; thus it wouldn't stand up in any court room.. and that's good enough for me.

But the official story would stand up in court, right? Oh wait, I forgot, there was never any investigation actually done, because the evidence was destroyed (which is a federal offense, in any other case but this one). How about those that are 'on trial' right now? Oh wait, those proceedings could take Years before they can even begin to make any headway. The only 'conviction' made in the 11 years since the incident was by one, single man who pleaded guilty while wearing a shock belt. We have no evidence that even the Official Story would hold up in court, so as it stands, your 'good enough' feelies on that point are actually pretty worthless.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I've heard your exact same speech from countless people on forums all over the internet..

Did you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la la la' to the rest of them as well? Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you did.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

The internet is a great tool for self-deception or a great tool for self-growth..

That you believe the only place where information on the alleged conspiracy can be found is on the internet really goes a long way toward telling people just how ill-informed you really are. How about PBS (or are you going to sit us down and explain to us about how PBS is a bastion for public deceit and misinformation? Quite a bold claim.)

Originally Posted by DeathCell

It takes a discerning mind to make progress.

The only thing you've been able to prove that you can 'discern' is what mainstream media source(s) you decide to put all your faith in, and how to charge through an argument by relying on insults, shallow rhetoric and avoidance of as many actual points as possible. You're not even aware enough of yourself to know when you're making a 'claim' or not. I'll bet the claim you've made numerous times in this thread - that the scientists who do have doubts on the official story are (by your expert opinion) 'not-credible' - has completely slipped your mind, too, therefore leaving you no responsibility to substantiate that phantom claim. Right?

[Edit: By the way, it's apparent that you're not exactly 'new' here, but I'll give the courtesy of formally 'requesting' that you moderate your own tone, while discussing things here at DV. From what I can see of your activity in this thread (and others), you have a hard time competently making an argument with resorting to calling people 'idiots' or telling them to 'shut up' or calling everything you disagree with 'bullshit'. Please get a handle on that, quickly. If you are intelligently capable of explaining your position, the childish insults are absolutely unnecessary, and will not be allowed to continue for too long.]

Deathcell, I'm still waiting to see you refute the evidence. Like O said, you're using an ad hominem. Refute the evidence.

But for your information I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job until I saw the evidence, so your fallacy is wrong anyways.