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

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.

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.>> ^shponglefan:

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.

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.

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.

My opinion is that theory 2 is the simplest theory that explains the evidence I have seen. However Occam's razor isn't much use in this scenario since all the evidence was destroyed before the investigation took place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Overview

The principle was often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.

@marbles

That's not what I said, and it's not what Chomsky said either. My point is that when they couldn't keep Iran-Contras leak free, there's no way that they could prevent a multitude of leaks about the much larger supposed 9/11 conspiracy. And we don't see that.

What we see, according to the truthers, are several unexplained phenomena about the collapse of the two largest office buildings in the world and one of their neighbours. Well, what a fucking surprise. It's not every day that giant skyscrapers get hit by planes and fall down. It's a damn complex event that we don't know everything about, especially not the truthers.

There are enough real problems and conspiracies in this world without people inventing new ones. Why not invest time and energy to solve for instance the AIDS problem in Africa? That would actually help real people. But it's much more comfortable to watch cleverly edited youtube videos at home. That way one doesn't have to think.

Argument from ignorance.

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?

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
Those "explosions" are the sounds of the towers collapsing. You'd kinda expect 100+ stories of building to make a lot of noise as it comes down. Go watch some real demolition videos if you want to hear what a real demo actually sounds like.
Also, a lot of what so-called 9/11 "truthers" point to as video evidence of explosions--the ejected smoke/air as the tower collapses--occurs after the tower has started collapsing. This is the opposite of the way normal demolitions work: explosions go off, then building comes down (usually starting at the bottom). The WTC towers collapsed from the top down; again opposite a normal demo.
And all of this still begs the question:
1) How would the towers be rigged in the first place, keeping in mind that rigging 250+ collective stories worth of skyscraper is no simple task?
And, 2) Why even bother rigging them at all since if this was a so-called "false flag" event, this just uncessarily complicates the whole thing by a factor of 100?
Of course, if you want to keep living in a Tom Clancy-esque spy thriller novel, all of this is irrelevant.

That page refers to the unedited version of the videos that were finally released after the truth movement FOI'd NIST. Try reading the post and you might come across a little better informed. At any rate eye-witnesses claimed they heard explosives so through a simple process of due diligence NIST should have tested for explosive residue to rule that scenario out.

>> ^Spacedog79:

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?
I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down and edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.
>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

>> ^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.

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. In the case of 9/11 it could be millions of people - journalists, politicians, scientists, firefighters, demolitions companies, the military, the police, the CIA and FBI, TV news reporters, office workers, cleaning staff, maintenance crews, NIST, eyewitnesses, plane pilots, camera crews, sound and video editors, the President and his staff, ambulance workers, the Pentagon staff, air-traffic control, explosives suppliers, airport ground crews... There'd almost be more people on the "inside" of the conspiracy than the outside.

>> ^Spacedog79:

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?
I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.
>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

>> ^Fade:
Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.

Those "explosions" are the sounds of the towers collapsing. You'd kinda expect 100+ stories of building to make a lot of noise as it comes down. Go watch some real demolition videos if you want to hear what a real demo actually sounds like.

Also, a lot of what so-called 9/11 "truthers" point to as video evidence of explosions--the ejected smoke/air as the tower collapses--occurs after the tower has started collapsing. This is the opposite of the way normal demolitions work: explosions go off, then building comes down (usually starting at the bottom). The WTC towers collapsed from the top down; again opposite a normal demo.

And all of this still begs the question:

1) How would the towers be rigged in the first place, keeping in mind that rigging 250+ collective stories worth of skyscraper is no simple task?
And, 2) Why even bother rigging them at all since if this was a so-called "false flag" event, this just uncessarily complicates the whole thing by a factor of 100?

Of course, if you want to keep living in a Tom Clancy-esque spy thriller novel, all of this is irrelevant.

NIST edited out explosions sounds from "a lot" of the footage? Really?

I mean seriously, really?? No I don't think so, even on the page you posted there is plenty of unedited audio, what possible reason would NIST have for editing some of it? Surely for an effective cover up you'd have to track down and edit all of it, otherwise people would hear the explosions and not just the sound of skyscrapers collapsing.

>> ^Fade:

Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.
http://911blogger.com/n
ews/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist
So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:
The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

Funnily enough NIST did an incredibly good job of editing out the audio from a lot of the building collapse footage. Always at exactly the point one would expect to have heard explosions. Explosions that lots of witness claim to have seen and heard.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist

So if witnesses claim there were explosions, is it not a good idea to test for evidence of explosions?>> ^Spacedog79:

The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.
If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.
This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

The controlled demolition theory is perhaps the most easily disproved. Explosions are really really loud, ask anyone who deals with these things, you'd expect to pick up the noise in audio from miles away. There was quite a few audio recordings of each of the collapses and none of them picked up any sort of explosion.

If you can explain to me how they set off enough explosives to bring down an entire skyscraper without making any noise, maybe I'd take the theory seriously.

This funnily enough is the reason NIST gave for not looking for explosives in the debris. Its pretty sound logic, its a shame it got drowned out in shouts of '9/11 was an inside job'.

WTC 4, 5 and 6 were a lot shorter though. WTC 4 and 5 are only 9 stories tall (and WTC 4 was pretty much destroyed by the debris), and WTC 6 was only 8 stories tall. I don't know if that qualifies them as "skyscrapers". In contrast, WTC 7 was 47 stories tall. Do you know of any other 40+ story buildings initially damaged from debris/collision/etc followed by intense fire for many hours that remained standing?

The onther thing that makes absolutely no sense--aside from the fact that secretly rigging buildings like WTC 1,2, and 4 would be a logistical nightmare--is why WTC 7 would be rigged at all. There is no logical sense to rig it to blow so many hours after the fact. Especially that if by some miracle it wasn't damanged in the WTC 1&2 collapse, what then? Just arbitrarily bring it down?

No, the whole "let's blow up the buildings" argument is just dumb on so many levels it hurts my head to even think about.

>> ^marbles:
Let me refer you to my previous comment:
http://videosift.com/video/Building-7-Explained#comment-1290794