You need to provide some real evidence to support your claim. You've heard the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claiming a pre-planned controlled demo and a resulting cover-up conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. So where's the extraordinary evidence to support it?

>> ^Fade:
You say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Fine, I think it does. How will we come to a consensus?

Now you're resorting to analogies? Besides a better one would be:

Cops establish a dead body was the result of an accident, but a bunch of random internet people want them to turn it into a murder case based on nothing more than speculation.

>> ^Fade:
When the cops come across a dead body the first thing they do is establish whether it was murder, they worry about the motive once they've established the facts.

You're not making any sense.

First, the building falling into "into its own footprint at freefall speed" is indication of a) structual failure, and b) that gravity was working that day. In both cases, the building collapse wouldn't necessarily be any different. So this is not evidence in your favor.

Second, it's not my job to disprove your point. You're making the positive claim for a controlled demo; therefore it's your job to provide evidence for that claim. And so far, your evidence amounts to: a) the building fell down (which is irrelevant as it applies to both scenarios), and b) there were explosions (which based on my viewing of the videos sound nothing like controlled demo blasts, plus NIST also concluded there were no indications of blasts capable of destroying a structural column). So really, you don't have any real evidence of a controlled demo. At all. And claiming the lack of evidence is part of a cover-up is just a cop-out.

Incidently, I'm not making an argument from incredulity. An argument from incredulity (look it up) is "I can't imagine X, therefore X is impossible". I've never suggested a controlled demo is impossible. Rather that it's incredibly far-fetched given the complications of such an event and that you need some real evidence to support that claim in lieu of the more reasonable explanation. You haven't done that.

>> ^Fade:
A skyscraper falling into its own footprint at freefall speed. If you can provide evidence of this happening that wasn't the result of controlled demolotion then you might have a valid point. Until then you are arguing from incredulity which we have already established is a fallacy.

The problem with theory 1 isn't a problem at all. In fact, it's largely irrelevant because what happened to WTC 7 (debris damaged followed by 7 hour fire) was a larely unique event, and that's ignoring other factors (i.e. building design, mitigating circumstances like lack of fire suppression) which may make comparisons even more unwarranted. And furthermore, even if other buildings had not collapsed under similar conditions doesn't mean it couldn't happen to WTC 7 or another building in the future. This appears to be the fallacy affirming the consequent.

The second issue is that WTC 7 doesn't look like a controlled demo other than the building fell down due to structural failure and gravity. To make that comparison based on the most superficial view is completely illogical, not to mention incredibly weak evidence for a controlled demo. Controlled demo would imply, as I said earlier, much pre-planning and logictical difficulties in setting it up. This makes theory #2 considerably more complex (since it involves many unknown factors) han theory #1.

Occam's Razor certainly applies here. It's not about the strictly simplist theory. It's about the theory with the same explanatory power but the fewest elements (complications). Theory #2 is by far a more complex theory than #1 as it involves not only the known facts from 9/11 (debris damage, fire), but also many more unknown speculations. As a result, it doesn't add anything unless you rule out theory #1 first. And if your best answer to that is "other buildings on fire didn't fall down" then it shows how weak your argument really is.

>> ^Fade:
We have two 'theories'
1 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to office furnishings burning for roughly 7 hours
2 - Steel Skyscraper collapses due to controlled demolition
Problems with theories.
theory 1 - No steel skyscraper has ever suffered a complete collapse due to fire.
theory 2 - It looks like demolition but demolition implies conspiracy.

No, the NIST report claims there is no blast sound within certain parameters (i.e. loud enough to indicate a charge capable of destroying a column). I've watched various videos of the WTC 7 collapse and the sounds in them, whether explosions or not, do not sound like any controlled demo blast.

So again, where's the evidence of a controlled demo? "Loud noises" isn't good enough.

>> ^Fade:
Ugh, this really is going in circles. The NIST report claims that there was no blast sound and that nobody heard it. True. However, that is factually incorrect. There is video evidence of blast sounds before the collapse as well as eyewitness testimony. NIST ignored it. That's why there is the belief that there is a conspiracy. Do try to keep up.

Love the apathetic singing from the cameraman.

Wasn't it also law for many years that women couldn't vote or hold office? Wonder how Bachmann would feel about that one.

Yes, it is an insane idea. I've already outlined the extremely complex logistics in bringing WTC 7 down as part of a secret plot on 9/11. Am I being incredulous? You betcha! You're suggesting a secret conspiracy with little more than flimsiest of "evidence"; so what do you expect?

For example, you say "Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions"**. So what? There probably were some explosions. Many things can explode, especially in the presence of a large seven hour fire: fuel storage containers, electrical transformers, etc. Plus other loud noises like falling debris may be misconstrued for explosions. To jump from "people heard explosions" to "secret plot to wire up WTC 7 for a controlled demo" is leaping several football fields worth of logic.

If you want to go the more complicated route, you need evidence of why that route is a more probable explanation and why it supercedes the more obvious explanation: that a debris damaged building burned for seven hours and then collapsed due to structural failure.

And if we're going to start trading things to look up, now you can look up Occam's razor.

** You may also want to re-read the NIST report on WTC 7. They specifically mention that there is no evidence of a "blast event" capable of destroying a singular column in WTC 7. They discuss that such an event would be extremely loud (130 to 140 dB) and be heard from at least a half mile away, and that there were no witness reports of such an event nor such audio heard in any recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.

>> ^Fade:
It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up

Eh, Coulter's just doing what she does best: saying outragous things so people give her face time. If people stopped reacting, she wouldn't be relevant.

First of all, I never said the collapse was due to falling debris. I said that the facts we have are that the building sustained initial damage (which according to NIST may have included structural damage) followed by a 7 hour fire leading to eventual structural failure. So please don't misread what I write. It's about pointing out known facts (damage + fire) versus unknown speculation (secret bombs).

Second, There is no real substantial evidence that WTC 7 was demo'd. It's mostly based on a superficial account of the video of the collapse, which in itself doesn't suggest anything other than the building was damaged, then on fire, then eventually fell down.

Third, saying that "none of that shit is relevant" when you are proposing an idea that would involve an extremely complex undertaking makes it relevant. When exploring ideas, it helps to step back sometime and do a "sanity" check. That you don't seem to want to with respect to the controlled demo idea suggests you know it's pretty insane idea, you just don't want to admit it.
>> ^Fade:
None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?
your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.
The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:

1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?

Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.

>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

No money shot?

>> ^Fade:
Just because you can't believe something is possible doesn't mean it isn't.
If you think we aren't living in a 'Tom Clancy-esque' world then you are sadly deluded.
I don't care about the conspiracy theories anyway. What I care about is that I am not convinced that wtc7 was brought down by fire. It looks like a controlled demo so why wasn't it investigated as such?


Well, I happen to think it was brought down by the Death Star. So maybe they should investigate that too?

The reason it wasn't investigated as a controlled demo is because the controlled demo theory is what it is: a wacky conspiracy theory based on extremely flimsy evidence and full of giant gaping holes.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Exactly. And this brings to mind the main problem all conspiracy theories have to overcome - the size of the conspiracy. For the 9/11 attacks to have been a conspiracy, it would require so many people to be involved in the secret that it would be impossible to stop the information leaking out. Sooner or later, someone from within the conspiracy would blab.


But that misses the point: it's fun to imagine a crazy, wacky conspiracy with layer upon layer of complexity. Because really, it's not about the "truth"; it's about imagining the world really is like a crazy political/spy thriller. Then you get to imagine all sorts of crazy things:

- missiles being shot into the Pentagon
- remote controlled jetliners hitting building
- secret explosives planted to bring down skyscrapers

etc etc.