"Like they said, the smallest explosive capable of doing that sort of damage would be heard easily within a very large radius. That didn't happen."

so uh what's going on here?

are you so determined to keep deluding yourself that you're at the point where you're just disregarding evidence now?

i'll repeat once more there are several reports of people claiming they heard explosives

that is fact 

"The building's collapse was explained in detail by NIST, and explained by the unique method of support that was used in the building (explaining why one side collapsed first)"

one side did not collapse first it can be clearly seen in any film of the event that the middle fails first then the whole building falls almost uniformly downward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI

jesus christ its right there on film man

"there were obviously a lot of loud noises and confusion occuring at the time these buildings collapsed, but if Building 7 was taken down by explosives, it would be indisputable. "

the original premise was that witnesses were interviewed and asked if they heard explosions, meaning that with that said we are relying on the testimony of witnesses so either you trust what they said about hearing explosions or you do not use that in an investigation, its that simple

for many it is indisputable because as they said they witnessed what happened and heard explosions and proceeded to tell other people what they experienced

"The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building."

how was that determined?

sound level is a measurable effect which is determined by instrumentation if you're using scientific analysis

to determine an adequate sound level would require instrumentation used at the event to give measurements

it should be obvious to anyone that you cannot apply that to this situation

And I repeat:

"The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building."

Explosion is a very vague term, but a heavy explosive like what would have been required to bring down the building would have been indisputable. I am not denying that people heard things that they may have refered to as explosions, I am saying that the accounts do not line up with what would have been necessary assuming explosions were present. If an explosive was used to bring down Building 7, it would have been heard by everyone within a half mile radius. The audio reports from the time of collapse do not show this as to have occured.

Sound isn't a binary thing...it exists in magnitude. I repeat one more time, eyewitness accounts do not match the SOUND LEVEL of an explosion that would have been required...whether or not people heard something that they described as an explosion is irrelevant. It is all about sound level

"one side did not collapse first it can be clearly seen in any film of the event that the middle fails first then the whole building falls almost uniformly downward"

you do not need explosives to collapse a building...heres a video for you guys

A secret society running the world in this day and age of information technology, wikileaks, and global chaos is so logistically implausible it's about as likely as Elvis being kidnapped by aliens.

kljesta64 said: you do not need explosives to collapse a building...heres a video for you guys

As for the claim about Thermite:

"To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day."

and

"There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.” ²

In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although “… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.” ^3"

Seriously? Next you ae going to try and tell us that the free masons don't exist.

"Sound isn't a binary thing...it exists in magnitude. I repeat one more time, eyewitness accounts do not match the SOUND LEVEL of an explosion that would have been required...whether or not people heard something that they described as an explosion is irrelevant. It is all about sound level"

lol i can't really believe that i have to break this down but here goes

ok so we both agree that conventional explosions have to have a signature sound level

sound intensity is measured in decibels

can you tell me the decibels of the sounds that witnesses associated with explosives at the scene?

you can't can you? why is that?

" I have watched numerous recordings with sound of Building 7 falling and have not been able to detect anything with my own ears "

lol i can't believe that this is where this has degraded to

so your ears are adequate for performing sound analysis now

and to clarify this point does the report say that they analysed the sounds of recordings?

i thought you said that their analyses was asking people to report if they heard explosions?

boy oh boy lol i must say the level to which people will go to to overlook uncomfortable information is frankly amazing to me

i mean obviously if something is uncomfortable or even horrible we may not want to analyse it

but consider that people are being killed by the millions because of this and also your rights and freedoms are being stripped away

the only way that this can be reduced is to wake up from dreamland

edit: i should have clarified before though that i'm not even really sure myself that it was explosions

If Nintendo is Illuminati, what about sony and microsoft? Especially Sony is the biggest illuminati company.

But let's get it right. Illuminati is everything! They have everything you eat, drink, breathe, do, have and use! The most important thing is for us to be good people and enjoy our lives while practising good :)

Cheers!

and yet its happening, the preisthood is in control and has been for a long time now

lol but seriously one thing to keep in mind is that all of the technology we use now has been handed down to us by the militery after it has become relatively obsolete to them...

what does that tell you?

"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.