How to remove a metal structure with ease?

Eraf

1,318

Brother

404

#46 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 15:28

Yasin wrote:

View original post

I visited the link and read up some.

I do not possess the technical expertise to analyse the evidences of either group (the official findings or the conspiracy theorists).

The simplest (most mundane) explanations are usually closest to the truth.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2Agree x 1

Iqra (Read).

Eraf

1,318

Brother

404

#47 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 15:32

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

You seem to speak with the certainty of someone who has first hand knowledge of everything that happened.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2Ha Ha x 1

Iqra (Read).

London

26,501

Brother

9,598

#48 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 15:58

abuzayd2k wrote:

View original post

I do. My source for wtc7 is the owner Larry silverstien on whose order the building was demolished.

I don't think you spent 58 seconds to want to believe your own ears :)

You want to listen to the then Mayor of New York, Rudy Guliani?

He's saying on live news too.

🤦‍♂️

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Winner x 1Creative x 1

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

Eraf

1,318

Brother

404

#49 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 16:00

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

How are YouTube videos considered first hand knowledge?

Definition

Firsthand knowledge refers to something which the witness actually saw or heard, as distinguished from something he learned from some other person or source. It is also a knowledge that is gained through firsthand observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief based on what someone else has said.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2Agree x 1Facepalm x 1

Iqra (Read).

6,674

Brother

925

#50 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 16:10

Quote:

The simplest (most mundane) explanations are usually closest to the truth.

Whose expert opinion is this?

Quote:

How are YouTube videos considered first hand knowledge?

Abu mohammed didn't say this. These are your words.

Quote:

I do not possess the technical expertise to analyse the evidences of either group (the official findings or the conspiracy theorists)

You asked for expert opinion. It was given to you. But your out is "i don't posses the technical expertise"

Then why ask for expert opinion?

And you said you believe the experts? What experts? I sent you 3000+ verified experts but you can ignore them and believe your experts but please enlighten us as to who they are?

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Creative x 1

I am not a Mufti

11,537

Brother

113

#51 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 16:29

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

Yasin wrote:

View original post

I wrote a book on 9/11 shortly after the events for some Ulama. WTC7 was always problematic because we know that nothing had hit it. I consulted "Muslim" civil Engineers in UK and USA to learn the technical reasons for the collapse (if it was at all possible). This took weeks and week of my research. I learned about the Ronan Point in UK which is not part of regulations in US

www.theguardian.com/society/from-the-archive-blog/gallery...

So the explanation given in this NIST video is technical plausible

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

I also see what is being said in this clear 58 second video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU

report post quote code quick quote reply

+4 -0Like x 3Informative x 1Ha Ha x 1

There is no Plan B!

http://www.central-mosque.com/

Eraf

1,318

Brother

404

#52 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 16:44

Yasin wrote:

View original post

What should have been my response to the expert opinions I was provided?

The expert opinions I looked through were the NIST report summaries.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

Iqra (Read).

Eraf

1,318

Brother

404

#53 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 16:56

Yasin wrote:

View original post

From curiosity.com:

"Occam's Razor Says the Simplest Explanation Is Usually the Right One. In other words, the simplest explanation is best. Though this principle might seem obvious, it underpins virtually every scientific discovery ever made."

report post quote code quick quote reply

+3 -0Like x 3Facepalm x 1

Iqra (Read).

USA

1,059

Brother

478

#54 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 17:34

abuzayd2k wrote:

View original post

This is a theory widely used in the law enforcement community.
It doesn't stop other angles of investigation, yet it is usually found to be the truest result of an investigation.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 3

In Need of Teaching

USA

1,059

Brother

478

#55 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 18:12

I have previously stated this:

"I have previously stated that with regards to 9/11 I have a "reasonable doubt".
This is a legal term used to state that the evidence that has been presented does not meet the burden of the state's (Prosecuting attorney) to convict against a crime.
I think until the US is able to release the secret portions (held because of National Security) of the 9/11 incident investigation it's unlikely I can be fully persuaded to their side."

My initial belief is based on what I observed on live television broadcasts.
Since, simply because other theories exist, I am no longer able to state with 100% certainty that what I observed is 100% accurate.

This is not the same as saying I believe in the other theories. I just don't know.
I don't know what secrets are being withheld and I have not yet done a "deep dive" into the conspiracy theories.

At this point in my life, I don't want to do the necessary research to prove or disprove the various theories. I simply have much more important things to do.

Inshallah, I will eventually do my own research on the theories being offered.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

In Need of Teaching

6,674

Brother

925

#56 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 18:36

abuzayd2k wrote:

View original post

First tell me, this is NIST.. are they credible in this regard?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU

They denies molten steel. They kept revising their data for the simulation until it met their presupposition to release as an official explanation? And even that was flawed as proven by experts.

abuzayd2k wrote:

View original post

I asked this deliberately.. Please follow here carefully:
So for freefall building, simplest explanation with thousands of identical comparisons available as well as 3000+ expert, professional architects and engineers who also provide the "simple" explanation (with evidence) that it was controlled demolition.

You follow NIST (proven liars) who say it was jet fuel fires (that scientifically cannot reach temperatures to melt steel) burned for so long that is softened the beams and eventually melted causing the entire building to fall at freefall which cannot be replicated, hasn't happened in history and doesn't comply with any law of science and physics.

Can you explain how the second one is more simple than the first one?

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Creative x 1

I am not a Mufti

USA

1,059

Brother

478

#57 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 18:53

I may be wrong, but shouldn't this thread be merged with the conspiracy thread?
At least after the part about it being click bait revealed.

report post quote code quick quote reply

+2 -0Like x 2

In Need of Teaching

London

26,501

Brother

9,598

#58 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 18:56

In Need of Teaching wrote:

View original post

It's my first ever click bait thread that has been positive :)

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Creative x 1

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

USA

1,059

Brother

478

#59 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 18:57

abu mohammed wrote:

View original post

I understand, and agree, but does it truly belong in the Help section?

*edit* Maybe Peoples Say then?

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Like x 1Agree x 1

In Need of Teaching

London

26,501

Brother

9,598

#60 [Permalink] Posted on 25th January 2020 19:02

abuzayd2k wrote:

View original post

In Need of Teaching wrote:

View original post

Seriously?

The simplest solution was to blame it on the Muslim's.

How did they do it?
Well simple, the performed manoeuvres that were and are still impossible to do.

They were able to throw an empty Pepsi can into to steel and concrete panel, set it in fire and wait 45 minutes until it melted and vanished into thin air!

Come on man!

Muadh, jzk for your intervention :)

I can't believe you didn't know about wtc7 with all the research you did and the booklet you published. What can I say ;)

report post quote code quick quote reply

+1 -0Creative x 1

Actions are judged by intentions, so each man will have what he intended.
ابو محمد

How to remove a metal structure with ease?

Font Size

Font Weight