The official conspiracy theory of 9/11

[AndyDufresne]

Was Universalchiro reincarnated as a _sabotage_?


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Zero examples of a structural steel building being brought down by fire.

Every prior example of a structural steel building collapse has been confirmed due to explosives.

And yet the government could tell people anything they want, and a certain percent won't ever question it. Standards are ignored. Physical evidence is ignored. Common sense is ignored.

The truth no longer matters.

[AndyDufresne]

And yet the government could tell people anything they want, and a certain percent won't ever question it. Standards are ignored. Physical evidence is ignored. Common sense is ignored.

The truth no longer matters.

--Andy

[Vinyl-Taliban]

And how do we determine there is no evidence for a controlled demolition? Isn't that usually done by checking the evidence? The evidence was not checked. The hypothesis cannot be made.

- No evidence of explosives
- No evidence of detonators
- No evidence of explosivley-cut structural members
- No evidence of barotrauma unjuries
- No evidence of shrapnel injuries
- No evidence of assocaited seismic activity
- No evidence that any kind of explosives was used anywhere
- No pools of both aluminium oxide and iron pointing to thermite anywhere
- Asymmetrical collapse
- Collapse outside of footprint
- The "Where" of failure - clearly seen, not a characteristic of CD
- Eyewitness accounts

Plenty more, I can't really be botherd to think about it too hard.

The historical record is clear: WTC 7 was struck by falling debris and had unfought fires burning for 7 hours. A fire damage hypothesis is reasonable, anything else isn't.

[_sabotage_]

Didn't check for explosives. Didn't check any physical evidence so I shouldn't have to reply to the next several.

Molten metals seen coming out of buildings, molten pools found around site, only tests on steel showed they were melted, molten fused objects recovered and documented.

Asymmetrical, please provide evidence.

Please provide evidence corresponding with a fire induced collapse for footprint.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Opposing eyewitness accounts recorded at the time and with supporting evidence.

What do you do again?

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Zero examples of a structural steel building being brought down by fire.

Every prior example of a structural steel building collapse has been confirmed due to explosives.

And yet the government could tell people anything they want, and a certain percent won't ever question it. Standards are ignored. Physical evidence is ignored. Common sense is ignored.

The truth no longer matters.

You're back at "it never happened before so can't have happened." You said you didn't believe in that.

You're factually incorrect anyway.There are examples, I can't really be bothered to look them up now, it's getting late.

But anyway, another red-herring. Were the buildings you make your comparison against constructed in the same way? Did they have fires burning for 7 hours? No, didn't think so.

Remind me to have the Mrs make chalk and pickle sandwhiches tomorrow, rather than my usual cheese.

[_sabotage_]

No, I'm back to investigative procedures.

I'll help you with a source(though not a very reliable one):

NIST.org

You eliminate the most likely cause first.

The only way you can eliminate it is by examining the evidence.

This is standard procedure.

It isn't proving a negative.

By your logic, NIST could have said:

It didn't collapse.

They make an arbitrary definition of collapse based on some obscure and subjective standard and then say: it didn't collapse.

They then wouldn't be required to prove a negative.

The whole world could say, but no it collapsed, but based on your logic, they would be perfectly justified with such an assessment.

What do you do again?

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Repeat after me:

There is no evidence to support a hypothesis of CD and therefore no scientific justification for forming it, let alone investigating it.

Where's the seismic activity from the explosions? Or are you back at silent explosives?

Nah, it was me farting wasn't it, let's be honest. I hold my hands up. And let's get NIST to investigate it becuase it has the same level of evidence as CD. Nada.

Wall. Bang. Head.

[_sabotage_]

I don't think this is going to get very far.

We clearly have a different perspective on things, Vinyl. When you ask me my background I provide it immediately. When I ask you, you ignore me. When I ask again, you ignore me. When I ask a third time, I'm obsessed. (I see you have deleted your reply as to what you do, as well as calling me obsessed.)

Perhaps if you had showed me the courtesy I showed you by answering the firs time, I wouldn't have repeated the question.

We seem to have a different understanding on what constitutes evidence. I feel firemen hearing an explosion and saying "7's exploding" constitutes evidence, as well as the other hundred or so direct witness statements, you don't. I think the work done by FEMA, WPI, the EPA and independent researchers counts as evidence, you don't. I think the actual remains of the building are evidence.

You are ok with not following basic protocol for complex reasons that were more difficult to come up with than simply following protocol. I think parameters should reflect reality. I think without checking for explosives, NIST has no right to say there were none.

You continually repeat there was no evidence. I guess experts, first hand witnesses recorded in situ, physical evidence and a long line of engineering and forensic practices aren't sufficient for you as they are for the rest of the world. I would feel sorry for you if you expressed some indication that you understand you are utterly ignorant of how an investigation works.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

I deleted my reply to see if you'd make it 4 consecutive posts where you ask what I do. Must be a record. And I said infatuated. Difference and probably true.

Here it is then:

And given your off-topic infatuation with what I do:

I previously worked as a civil servant on secondment to various Govt. Depts. such as the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

I'm now involved in various projects: I'm a partner in a brokerage, a data science company, and also an education agency.

Yes, this won't go far with the erros of logic you make.

You say (with a straight face): if explosions then explosives.

If you don't see this statement is not true no one can help you. Grab a book in critical thinking (for dummies) or better, take a course in philosophy.

For example, I blindfold you, inflate a balloon and pop it with a pin. In your universe, this explosion is evidence of explosives!

You ignore the use of simile in statements. You disregard statements that don't fit your pre-selected conclusion.

You accept speculation as fact. You still hold on to 'nothings' like the pull it quote.

This won't go anywhere whilst you claim nonsense as evidence.

You even state (with straight face) CD was most probable reason for collapse. That's funny.

I don't even need to dissect your fantasy about rigged buildings in case of assault, or ninja demo crews - that demonstrates the true state of mush between your ears, and would be extremely funny but sadly you believe the utter drivel you spew.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

When you say this you are being utterly dishonest:

You continually repeat there was no evidence. I guess experts, first hand witnesses recorded in situ, physical evidence and a long line of engineering and forensic practices aren't sufficient for you as they are for the rest of the world.

Arguing as if I'm the conspiracy theorist going against 'the rest of the world' is outrageous and destroys your credibility.

[_sabotage_]

Dude,

I have posted videos to back this up. I have posted from NIST to back it up. I can post longer videos if you like. People usually aren't willing to watch an hour long video with engineers talking.

You haven't discussed anything I have brought up but merely go to a debunking site and get whatever pre-prepped answer they have.

And you are the conspiracy theorist, the one whose theory doesn't require evidence for some reason. I'm glad you've established what your role is in this thread.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

I've discussed the points you've made and pointed out fallacies, contradictions and straight up lies.

You address the objections raised.

And please stop suggesting you've brought original analysis to the table, you haven't.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

And stop deflecting. Tell me why 'if explosions then explosives' is logically correct.

I won't hold my breath.

[_sabotage_]

Actually, you haven't addressed any of my issues with your conspiracy theory, but since you said you did, here's a video I posted a few pages back.

Can you tell me what the firemen are saying?

[Vinyl-Taliban]

And stop deflecting. Tell me why 'if explosions then explosives' is logically correct.

I won't hold my breath.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Actually, you haven't addressed any of my issues with your conspiracy theory, but since you said you did, here's a video I posted a few pages back.

Can you tell me what the firemen are saying?

Someone says 'explosion' from what I can make out.

And so what?

[Vinyl-Taliban]

When you say this you are being utterly dishonest:

You continually repeat there was no evidence. I guess experts, first hand witnesses recorded in situ, physical evidence and a long line of engineering and forensic practices aren't sufficient for you as they are for the rest of the world.

Arguing as if I'm the conspiracy theorist going against 'the rest of the world' is outrageous and destroys your credibility.

Come on then. It's time to call you out on everything.

Justify 'rest of the world'.

You're a liar.

[_sabotage_]

The firefighter in view during that explosive clap hunches down. A firefighting says sevens exploding another says I know, we got to get back.

The rest of the world: the set guidelines used to arrive at a theory by all of those required to arrive at one. See you are promoting a theory, not a scientific fact.

An actual guideline states:

The forensic investigation can make no claims that they haven't established to a reasonable engineering certainty.

What would be considered a reasonable engineering certainty is not the everyday layman's standard. You have failed to establish that standard for your theory.

There can be no certainty that explosives were not used based on than video without checking: the guidelines say to check anyways without the requirement of any proof. But even with such evidence, they still wouldn't check. Therefore, your theory that no explosives were used cannot possible be deemed valid.

[AndyDufresne]

I'd probably say things were exploding too. That is the poetic beauty of language. You can choose so many words for varying effects.


--Andy

[_sabotage_]

Yeah, but that's why we don't let chimps make decisions. Reasonable decisions require putting info together.

Loud sound. Hunched, taken aback response from a fireman, fireman says 7's exploding, fireman agrees.

Three firefighters all reacting consistent with an explosion, and speaking consistent with an explosion. These are not lay people who are mistaking thunder for explosion. Everything is consistent in the video.

[Metsfanmax]

Are firemen more qualified to comment on what nanothermite explosions sound like than the general public?

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Yeah, but that's why we don't let chimps make decisions. Reasonable decisions require putting info together.

Loud sound. Hunched, taken aback response from a fireman, fireman says 7's exploding, fireman agrees.

Three firefighters all reacting consistent with an explosion, and speaking consistent with an explosion. These are not lay people who are mistaking thunder for explosion. Everything is consistent in the video.

And so what?

Soldiers who've returned from active service have been known to hit the deck when hearing a car backfire. Some of my friends certainly have.

[_sabotage_]

You seem to have trouble understanding your role still.

You are supporting a conspiracy theory. The burden of proof is on you. To establish your theory, the process is standardized. The process requires you to check for explosives for no reason. If you wish to prove your theory, not only do you have to follow the process, your conclusions have to be verifiable.

Saying they are hearing a car backfire is just trolling. You have zero intention of proving your theory. You have set the standard for evidence at some unattainable level and then claim there is none.

[Vinyl-Taliban]

Such panache.

When in doubt, invert, and claim troll.