Recent Comments by shponglefan subscribe to this feed

"Building 7" Explained

shponglefan says...

>> ^Fade:
Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.
fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.


Wait, what? You're claiming, "I have read the full report, everything that is public", but also "If there is evidence then why isn't it public?". Uh, dude, most of the evidence *is* public.

There are 3 reports specifically related to the WTC 7 investigation. The one I assume you've read is probably the NCSTAR 1A report. But I already pointed out, there are two others, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. The NIST NCSTAR 1-9 report is ~800 pages containing loads of photographs and stills from video clips on which they based on the investigation. On top of that, videos and photos from their collection they used for the investigation are also available on their web site.

The only thing I can't find are the interviews. I don't know if that means they are not public (although there could be any number of reasons for that, not necessarily "ZOMG it's a conspiracy!"), or if I just can't find them.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. You don't buy it, that's your choice. You want another investigation, go help fund one then.

29 years old and hearing myself for the 1st time!

Warren Buffett: I Don't Fully Support 'Buffett Rule'

"Building 7" Explained

shponglefan says...

>> ^Fade:
Re. your point about funding. A 47 story skyscraper collapsing is a worrying event. Since the new york skyline is dominated by many such buildings, all at risk of fire you would think that funding for an investigation would be readily available.
The NIST report basically says that every building in New York is going to have to be rebuilt. That's hard to swallow since no building before or since has collapsed due to fire, therefore a rational conclusion would be that the investigation was potentially flawed and should be rerun.


Funding for an investigation was available; it's what NIST did. The government funding yet another investigation doesn't make much sense, especially since the NIST report was supposed to be a more thorough investigation after FEMA already made their preliminary investigation. And so far you haven't really given any good reasons to do so. There's no real evidence of controlled demos. And arguing via precedent (i.e. "other buildings didn't fall down!") is a fallacy and concluding their investigation was flawed on those grounds is illogical.

The alternative is a privately-funded investigation, but that means individuals have to cough up the cash. The NIST investigation cost about $16 million; I imagine just for WTC 7 probably ran a few million alone, so who is going to pay for it? Would you be willing to chip in a few thousand dollars of your own money to help fund such an investigation? How important is this to you really? Enough to cough up some real cash?

"Building 7" Explained

shponglefan says...

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.


First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.

Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).

Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

The Liberal Media is Brainwashing Our Good Christian Kids

shponglefan says...

The funny thing about social conservatives is that invariably, they always lose. Society changes. It's what societies do. You either get on board and try to steer the change for the better, or you don't.

Vertical Landing. Do you get this? VERTICAL JET LANDING

shponglefan says...

>> ^robbersdog49:
I'm not seeing anything impressive about this. The jet engine has been around for a long time, and the Harrier was doing this forty years ago. The only difference is the electronics controlling it, and you can see that in action in a £200 model helicopter I can control with my phone.


So... why aren't you in there bidding on next-gen fighter development contracts?

Vertical Landing. Do you get this? VERTICAL JET LANDING

shponglefan says...

>> ^Xaielao:
Sure they have a lot of these but against US or European aircraft such as the F-35 or Europe's modern Typhoon or Sukhoi SU-47, a country like Iran would be outmatched dramatically and a confrontation for air space would likely be over in weeks and we'd likely barely loose a single fighter thanks to modern fly-by-wire and 'fire and forget' weapons.
So in the end I just don't see the point.


Uh, I think you already hit the point.

Trader on BBC News says Eurozone Market will crash

shponglefan says...

>> ^EMPIRE:
oh... so the crash is an opportunity for assholes like this to make a buck.


What he says is that anyone can make money during a crash; and this is true. The problem is that when markets plummet, people see no end in sight. So they panic sell and then turn paper losses into real losses and further precipitate the downturn. I've seen it happen so many times it boggles my mind.

I think Warren Buffet said it best: people will buy anything on sale except for stocks.

"Building 7" Explained

shponglefan says...

>> ^Fade:
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm
How the explosives may have been planted.


I looked at the site and a few comments:

1) The linked video didn't work, so maybe I'm missing something important.
2) There isn't really any discussion on the site of anything specific to planting explosives; just allusions to maintenance or evacutions with no details. It reads more like speculative storytelling than anything factual.
3) Not really sure what the hubbub about Marvin Bush being on the BoD is suppose to be. The author seems to think this is Earth-shattering news, but I don't understand why? Also, looking up Wirt Walker III, couldn't find any verification he is related to the Bush family at all. And even if he were, again, I fail to see the significance.
4) From further research, WTC security is actually provided through multiple agencies. Securacom/Stratesec had a contract to provide electronic security, although from what I can gather than contract mainly took place during the mid/late 90's.

So yeah, not really seeing anything of significance.

"Building 7" Explained

shponglefan says...

>> ^Fade:
You continue to miss my point. All I'm saying is that there should be a more thorough investigation. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If an independent agency conducts a thorough bit of research that isn't ham strung by secrecy as the NIST investigation is (Right there my alarm bells go off since why is there a need to keep evidence secret? It makes things seem conspiratorial <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">) then I will happily accept that the building collapsed due to fire.
So far I have seen zero evidence that fire damage caused the collapse. Why are you so zealous about defending a hypothesis anyway?


If you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're certainly do a good impression of one.

As far as another investigation, the issue there is funding. Investigations aren't free, especially if you want a "more thorough" one. So who pays for it? It doesn't make sense to have another taxpayer funded one, especially since I'm sure people will still cry conspiracy any time the government is involved. OTOH, if people want to privately fund one, sure, go nuts. But is/was there actually any funding for such an investigation? If not, then the whole point is moot.

As to claiming there is no evidence for fire collapse, the NIST report is there for all to read. If you choose to reject it on conspiratorial grounds (which you are admittedly doing) then that's your perogrative. Not sure what else to say about that really.

Soundtrack of your Nightmares

"Building 7" Explained

shponglefan says...

Like I already said, the WTC 7 collapse is a relatively unique event. You can't go with historical prescedent because AFAIK, there is no other case of a similar building being hit by debris then burning for 7 hours. And even if there was, another building not collapsing does not prove that buildings can't collapse from these types of events. No two events are completely identical. Your entire line reasoning here is one giant fallacy.

Second, the controlled demo, as I've also already said, is considerably more complex as you are adding many speculative, unknown factors. That's what makes it more complicated. If you don't understand that, then I suggest looking up "complex" vs "simple" in the dictionary, because I think you have those terms confused.

Third, "governments lie about everything" is just a cop-out to ignore things you don't like (like the NIST report). And this is what conspiracy theoriests do. Whenever the evidence doesn't support you, claim it's a conspiracy. In fact, if there was a 3rd party who did the investigation and concluded the same thing as NIST, you'd just turn around and claim it's still part of the conspiracy. Basically, facts are irrelevant to you.

So yeah, you got nothing.

>> ^Fade:
The controlled demolition claim is the simplest explanation of the event. The claim that it collapsed due to office fires is the extraordinary one. This is something that has NEVER happened before. Therefore, by definition it is extraordinary. There is ZERO evidence that fires caused the collapse. NIST refuses to release the data it used to model the collapse and all the evidence was destroyed. Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at what is in front of you.I used the analogy to drive home the point that we need to establish that a crime has been committed before we look at HOW the crime was committed.
Governments lie about everything. This is a fact. Why should this be any different? NIST is a government agency, therefore their report is biased. The investigation needs to be independent and transparent. That is all.

Bathtub Cat Leap of Fail

shponglefan says...

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
It doesn't look wet when it climbs out, and no water comes out with it, and the water sound effect is fake-sounding... that's an empty bath.


The video is too low quality to determine that. Besides, the cat wouldn't panic like that if it was an empty bath. Conclusion: water.

Kids React to Planking



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon