• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Building 7

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

pixelsmith said:
Read it a few years ago Angelo. OLD NEWS.

NIST has come out and admitted an 8 second free fall. You do not need a fancy education to know that the only way a building like that can free fall "at the speed of gravity" is to remove ALL resistance below it.
Click to expand...

As I said pixelsmith, I know nothing about engineering, so I will defer to those that have studied it. If the video you posted has experts in the field saying that it is impossible to have happened the way it has been explained, then I will be interested. If it's just more "truthers," I'll tune out real quick.
Common sense is all well and good, but I'm a firm believer in education when it comes to these types of things.

Where's Lance? He had great points the last time you tried to debate this, and he's researched it way more than I have. Maybe we should merge this thread with that one...

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

There we go, I merged the threads, since they are discussing the same thing and there are great points that were made in the previous thread on both sides of the argument.
 
I would have preferred you NOT merge the threads. If you are not a moderator why are you still doing this sort of thing?
 
Not your decision to make, Pixel. We try to make it easier for people to navigate through the forum threads. The decisions of the Moderators are final in such instances.
 
pixelsmith said:
I would have preferred you NOT merge the threads. If you are not a moderator why are you still doing this sort of thing?
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, but I'm still a moderator for now. I figured it be best if we merged the threads, as Lance brought up some fantastic points in that one and they are dealing with the exact same subject.
I try my best to merge similar threads.
 
Pixel, to answer your question I am interested in hearing expert conclusions. I like that it will include engineers, architects, metallurgists, chemists, and explosive and demolitions experts. I would further hope that they can do a series of computer simulations and deliver a peer reviewed paper detailing the precise and technical data leading to their conclusions. I am sure the paper would be about as boring as Neil Diamonds love life but if they want to be taken seriously they need to deliver something that clearly derails the official conclusion with highly detailed technical explanations.

In this instance, the video should be a vehicle to get my attention and get me interested in taking a hard look at the painstakingly prepared explanation of the hard data. If they do not deliver on that then the entire thing is straw dog.
 
Ron Collins said:
Pixel, to answer your question I am interested in hearing expert conclusions. I like that it will include engineers, architects, metallurgists, chemists, and explosive and demolitions experts. I would further hope that they can do a series of computer simulations and deliver a peer reviewed paper detailing the precise and technical data leading to their conclusions. I am sure the paper would be about as boring as Neil Diamonds love life but if they want to be taken seriously they need to deliver something that clearly derails the official conclusion with highly detailed technical explanations.

In this instance, the video should be a vehicle to get my attention and get me interested in taking a hard look at the painstakingly prepared explanation of the hard data. If they do not deliver on that then the entire thing is straw dog.
Click to expand...


did you see any of those things in the official investigation?!? too bad our government spent more money on investigating clintons blow job than they did on the events of 9/11...
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I never knew Ed Asner was a truther.
The short video hasn't changed my opinion, but as Ron said, I'll wait for the peer-reviewed paper.
Click to expand...

A peer reviewed paper on building 7 just like the one from the Official 9/11 Commission report?

by the way, if Asner or I are "truthers" then that make you a "liar". right?

---------- Post added at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 AM ----------

Ron and Angelo please direct me to the US governments peer reviewed paper on how WTC Building 7 fell.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
You've used that one before. Saying "truther" is easier than saying "you think you know the truth but you're completely wrong(er)."

Here's a link to the peer reviewed paper. I'll wait for the inevitable "lmao, that's part of the conspiracy" stuff you always say.

NIST Manuscript Publication Search
Click to expand...

can you tell me which of the 6 different explanations from NIST you believe?
can you tell me who the other PEERS were that reviewed this NIST paper?
can you direct me to the OFFICIAL building 7 report in the 9/11 Commission Report?

calling you a liar is easier than saying "you think YOU know the truth but YOU are completely wrong.
 
From my point of view the NIST report was an official report detailing the results of an investigation not an academic work. That is a big difference. If these guys want the investigation to be reopened then they need to first come at this with a peer reviewed paper and then a law suit. Thats how it works. Spouting things like "Well they didn't do it that way" doesn't work when my son uses it and it wont work for this either. They have to go through the motions. The law suit will call on experts and peer reviewed studies to determine if the case should be reopened. Without it, all you have is a bunch of people with 3 or 4 minute sound bytes accomplishing nothing.

Listen, if there were shenanigans in all of this I will be at the front of the line demanding that heads roll. But, demanding this stuff be reopened and reinvestigated with nothing more than innuendo is irresponsible given our current economic situation. There needs to be a clear and concise reason for it and that reason needs to demonstrate that there is a good chance that the previous finding will be overturned.

Thats my two cents.
 
Ron Collins said:
From my point of view the NIST report was an official report detailing the results of an investigation not an academic work. That is a big difference. If these guys want the investigation to be reopened then they need to first come at this with a peer reviewed paper and then a law suit. Thats how it works. Spouting things like "Well they didn't do it that way" doesn't work when my son uses it and it wont work for this either. They have to go through the motions. The law suit will call on experts and peer reviewed studies to determine if the case should be reopened. Without it, all you have is a bunch of people with 3 or 4 minute sound bytes accomplishing nothing.

Listen, if there were shenanigans in all of this I will be at the front of the line demanding that heads roll. But, demanding this stuff be reopened and reinvestigated with nothing more than innuendo is irresponsible given our current economic situation. There needs to be a clear and concise reason for it and that reason needs to demonstrate that there is a good chance that the previous finding will be overturned.

Thats my two cents.
Click to expand...

So which "official report" from NIST do you subscribe to? they changed their minds no less than 6 times... but then you probably knew that right? the last NIST report admitted an unexplainable 8 second fee fall..now Ron, how do you explain that? AND how do you explain that building 7 is NOT in the GOVERNMENTS Official 9/11 Commission Report?
Lastly, how do you explain that MORE money was spent on investigating the "shenanigans" concerning Clintons BLOW JOB from his mistress?
 
pixelsmith said:
So which "official report" from NIST do you subscribe to? they changed their minds no less than 6 times... but then you probably knew that right? the last NIST report admitted an unexplainable 8 second fee fall..now Ron, how do you explain that? AND how do you explain that building 7 is NOT in the GOVERNMENTS Official 9/11 Commission Report?
Lastly, how do you explain that MORE money was spent on investigating the "shenanigans" concerning Clintons BLOW JOB from his mistress?
Click to expand...

You keep saying that and it's pretty sad if it's true, but I would like for you to show me where you got that information.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
You keep saying that and it's pretty sad if it's true, but I would like for you to show me where you got that information.
Click to expand...

If you had read all the released NIST reports you would have that information, instead you try to come off like you know everything.
Maybe you should read the official report from the official 9/11 commission and find some information on building 7.... oh wait... they chose to NOT include that building although it held the Mayors reenforced terror bunker, documents from the Enron scandal and also offices for every 3 letter agency you can think of... nothing special.
 
If anyone really wants to have an informed conversation about 911 they should get themselves a copy of the 911 report and read it. Who has done that, raise your hand. Thank you. Then they should avail themselves of the very credible and informed opinions of the architects and pilots who have written papers on the subject. Who has done that, please raise your hand. Ok, thank you. The rest of you go do your homework and come back with an informed opinion rather than one you've borrowed from someone else.

It is obvious to anyone who cares to look into the matter that the official conspiracy story and the REALITY of the situation are two very different things.

Not an architect or an engineer? Here, read about real investigations made by real architects and engineers YOURSELF. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Not a pilot? Well here, read something written by real pilots. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

If this thread degenerates into another name-calling pissing contest I'm going to be really disappointed in everyone. Damn people, the information is out there look into for yourself instead of borrowing an opinion from a talking head who thinks pulling out a bobble-head alien toy on Larry King is a cogent argument against UFOs. Sheeeeeesh!!

The difference between a true skeptic and a debunker is this. Skeptics are skeptical of their own conclusions debunkers are not. Debunkers are guilty of what John Alexander calls cerebalcentrism, were they believe that they are smarter than anyone else, or at least they are smarter than the person holding a different opinion than theirs. They also, unlike a true skeptic, assume that something can't be true therefore it isn't. This applies both to UFOs and the Paranormal as well as things like the events surrounding 911. I often ask myself where do I fall in this? Am I skeptical enough of my own conclusions and thoughts? Am I informed enough? What have I not considered? Am I just another asshole with a borrowed opinion?
 
trainedobserver said:
If anyone really wants to have an informed conversation about 911 they should get themselves a copy of the 911 report and read it. Who has done that, raise your hand. Thank you. Then they should avail themselves of the very credible and informed opinions of the architects and pilots who have written papers on the subject. Who has done that, please raise your hand. Ok, thank you. The rest of you go do your homework and come back with an informed opinion rather than one you've borrowed from someone else.

It is obvious to anyone who cares to look into the matter that the official conspiracy story and the REALITY of the situation are two very different things.

Not an architect or an engineer? Here, read about real investigations made by real architects and engineers YOURSELF. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Not a pilot? Well here, read something written by real pilots. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

If this thread degenerates into another name-calling pissing contest I'm going to be really disappointed in everyone. Damn people, the information is out there look into for yourself instead of borrowing an opinion from a talking head who thinks pulling out a bobble-head alien toy on Larry King is a cogent argument against UFOs. Sheeeeeesh!!
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!! Well stated. So now we can wait for about 6 years for these boys to catch up on the same amount of research the rest of us have done.
 
pixelsmith said:
If you had read all the released NIST reports you would have that information, instead you try to come off like you know everything.
Maybe you should read the official report from the official 9/11 commission and find some information on building 7.... oh wait... they chose to NOT include that building although it held the Mayors reenforced terror bunker, documents from the Enron scandal and also offices for every 3 letter agency you can think of... nothing special.
Click to expand...

Pixel, I'm talking about them spending more on investigating Clinton than 9/11.
 
<!-- /firstHeading -->
Angel wrote: Lynn Margulis was Carl Sagan's first wife apparently. She's also a bit of a nutter



<!-- bodyContent --> Richard Dawkins had this to say about Lynn Margulis and her work:[TABLE="class: cquote"]
<TBODY>[TR]
[TD="width: 20"]“[/TD]
[TD]I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it.[SUP][5]




ROFLMAO! Sorry Angel but ya know I gotta tweak you once in awhile. :-) Since your not really leaving as a mod I wanted to make sure you still felt welcome. :-) Of course I consider Dawkins to be a bit of a nutter myself so I guess you can be a respected scientist and still be a nutter.

On a more serious note, terms such as nutter, truther, creationist, racist, and other loaded terms tend to marginilize folks and take away from legitimate discussion.
On a more seriouser note :-) we don't always agree but I do appreciate your dilligence Angel in trying to keep the discussion flowing. As for Lance I have seen him "thanking" folks but he hasn't posted lately.
Come back to the Five and Dime Lancey Dean, Lancey Dean. ;)[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
</TBODY>[/TABLE]
 
Back
Top