| sundin13 said: "can you tell me the decibels of the sounds that witnesses associated with explosives at the scene?" Me personally? Of course not, but NIST took a variety of testimonies from numerous witnesses and made the conclusion that of all the sounds that were heard, the sound that would be characteristic of this form of high explosive was not among them. The audio data is the most important validation of that (not just my ears, which as I said, it would be readily apparent in any audio footage if such an explosive was detonated). I believe I have already posted the section where the NIST report speaks of their audio data but I will post another section: "Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." You seem to be hyperfocusing on things that are ridiculous, like the fact that I can't personally determine decibel levels from witness testimony, and ignoring the bigger picture and all of the other evidence. "boy oh boy lol i must say the level to which people will go to to overlook uncomfortable information is frankly amazing to me" Same can be said to you...you've brushed over a lot of things I've said and blatantly accused NIST of lying. This case has been analysed and it has been explained. We don't need explosives to reach the building collapsing if we have a much more logical explanation which is supported by much more data. The whole incident on 9/11 was a mess and there will always be some unanswered questions, but just because a question doesn't have an answer, it doesn't mean there is some absolutely massive conspiracy (and I mean absolutely massive...). Honestly, it reminds me of the ancient greeks, who, when they didn't understand something like lightning, they merely attributed it to some unseeable deity. (Let me throw another thing at you just for fun. I've heard people say "man, all those pharmaceutical companies are holding back the cure for cancer so they can make money off of people's treatment," and whenever I hear that I think "So these companies spent billions of dollars developing something that they could make billions of dollars selling, so they can make money off of treatments? Thats ridiculous!". This seems similar to me. You are saying "All those media outlets (and pretty much everyone else on earth) are holding back all the information regarding the WTC conspiracy" when I'm thinking "So thousands of people are holding back this information that they could make a veritable fortune off of releasing if they had any concrete proof...okay." This thing is too big to keep quiet...) I do believe that things like this should be analysed, but when it doesn't fit into your narrative of a conspiracy, you can't just brush it away as being another piece of the conspiracy. The backbone of science is that you need to have a means of proving hypothesis wrong. This is why religion is fundamentally unscientific. Your conclusions have no way of being proved wrong, because you can brush off any contradictory evidence as being a piece of the illuminati machine. That isn't critical, scientific thinking. (heres another fun thinking point...what if the illuminati is not the ones who are orchestrating this mass conspiracy, but instead are the ones who are bringing up these anti-government counterpoints? What if the illuminati are spreading all of this anti government propaganda and using their name to inflict fear of the evil government in the people? Honestly, its ridiculous, but its no less likely than what you are saying) "the only way that this can be reduced is to wake up from dreamland" I'm a scientist. I look at things scientifically. I do what I can with the evidence I'm given and interpret it using the tools I'm given. There are far too many gaping holes and giant leaps of logic in these conspiracies for me to believe them. Do I believe that the United States needs change? Of course, I've talked many times about some of the changes that I would like to see made. However, I do not think that ridiculous assertions and assumptions need to be made for anything to get done. I believe we need to fight against ignorance, but this is taking it numerous steps to far, passing englightenment and going straight into masturbatory fear mongering. |
now i'd like to make it clear that i don't know if it was explosions for certain or not i only argued the explosions point because of your initial claim that explosions were not reported by witnesses
with that being said...
"You seem to be hyperfocusing on things that are ridiculous, like the fact that I can't personally determine decibel levels from witness testimony, and ignoring the bigger picture and all of the other evidence."
well you didn't provide the other evidence before
i looked at what you presented and questioned it
so when you said that they determined from witnesses that the audio levels required for explosions were not at the right level obviously i'm going to question that because it sounds ridiculous
"you've brushed over a lot of things I've said and blatantly accused NIST of lying."
let us be specific here what i called the report out on was the part that it stated that no witnesses present heard explosions
that is a lie according to several of the witnesses
"Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event."
ok that is the conclusion of NIST and they may very well be right on this point, that does not mean however that the official story is correct i hope you understand that
if NIST is correct then so be it the witnesses are wrong
as i mentioned before various engineers have concluded that a variety of methods could have been used here but they are all unified in the claim that the official story is worthless tripe
"We don't need explosives to reach the building collapsing if we have a much more logical explanation which is supported by much more data"
the problem with this claim is that claiming that a mere office fire can melt all of the structural steel in a building in such a way that all of the support throughtout the building fails simultaneously is not only illogical but also unscientific
i'll explain what i mean a little more by this if the structure had weakened irregularly as it would have in an uncontrolled event the building would have buckled to one side or partially collapse or whatever
but that did not happen
the whole enormous structure just lost all of the supporting structure responsible for giving it its form simultaneously which caused what we saw on film with the whole thing going down uniformly
this is analogous to destroying someone's skeleton without causing external damage
also why were people able to traverse the insides of these buildings before they fell? should that not have been impossible considering the heat that would have been needed to destroy all of the structural steel throughout the building ( if that could even be thought to happen )
also why is there no visual evidence of flames from the outside?
sorry all of this requires too much magical thinking for me to handle
""So thousands of people are holding back this information that they could make a veritable fortune off of releasing if they had any concrete proof...okay." This thing is too big to keep quiet..."
no i didn't say anything like that
in reality the vast majority of people just don't care to investigate, they are satisfied that whatever they are told by authority figures is always true
on the other hand most of the people who have actually taken the time to investigate are realising that things do not add up
that is why there are various movements out there that are pushing for the truth to be reveled
if you doubt me go to any recent article from google about these events and look at the comments...
"heres another fun thinking point...what if the illuminati is not the ones who are orchestrating this mass conspiracy"
hang on there i wasn't debating who did this because honestly i have no idea
what i was debating is that the official sotry is garbage
"Do I believe that the United States needs change? Of course, I've talked many times about some of the changes that I would like to see made. However, I do not think that ridiculous assertions and assumptions need to be made for anything to get done. I believe we need to fight against ignorance, but this is taking it numerous steps to far, passing englightenment and going straight into masturbatory fear mongering."
you see the thing is that the first step to change can only be education
becoming aware of the situation as a whole
change must be guided with knowledge
