What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Do you see rain and lighting in any video at the scene of the incident? Funny way to classify it as a clap of thunder, when it obviously could not have been a "clap of thunder." And yes, I'd expect a thorough investigation to examine what could have caused the sound of an explosion at a major cataclysmic event like that.

I was not referring to the video. I've already stated previously what I thought it might be. What I am stating is that it is stupid to DEMAND an investigation because 3 years after the event, someone releases a video of a couple of guys around a payphone that hear a loud noise.

There is no way to confirm that the noise wasn't the collapse of the building, or any other numerous things that make loud noises. Yet you insist that it MUST have been explosives because, it just must, because anyone who doesn't believe that is stupid!

What you are stating is that every time a building collapses and we hear a loud noise, there should be an investigation into it to see if explosives were used. Hence the reference to thunder.

The 'Noise' or 'Explosion' or what ever you call the recorded sound was easily the sound carried down the central core to the foundation from the start of the collapse. The vibrations are suppose to be carried down to the foundation they are connected. I'd have imagined a much louder report from the collapse start... after the start if you could hear explosions... well... what are the pancaking going to sound like if not just that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511


A 707 is a relatively small plane compared to a 767. Additionally, it wasn't just fire that led to weakened floor joints, it was the impact which blew off spray-on fire-retardant that was on the steel.

The building was properly designed - it was designed so that the outer walls and the inner central core were load bearing. Punching a big whole in the side greatly affected the building's ability to distribute the load, as the side wall was important in holding the building up. Plus, the planes cut into the cores of the building, damaging that sections ability to handle loads.

I'm sure they didn't design the building to withstand the impossible scenario that could result. For example, the building might have been fine without the fires or with the fires and without the impact, but the combination led to floor pancaking - once the floors started to fail, the outer, load bearing walls were no longer being properly supported, and subsequently buckled, leading to unstoppable, catastrophic structural failure.

Symmetry is caused by how the floors and the outer load bearing walls interact. The floor holds the load bearing walls in place - when the floor starts to buckle, the walls can bulge out fairly evenly because of this important interconnect between the floors and walls.

I don't think there is a big difference tween the 707/767. I listed the earlier model in a post above and the 707 has two more engines and cruises at a faster speed. Not much difference to the speed the 767 went into one building. But, that aside, even I would consider the damage potential of a plane hit to include removal of fire retarding substances.. Anyhow, my math says that both planes would create similar damage or at least within a margin of error.
They, the designers, said in an interview that they felt the design would have enabled a few plane hits to occur... That means they really were certain it could withstand the near impossible event.
I saw the NIST report on what was damaged per their estimate. The exterior simply transferred the load around the hole and the core maintained its load and if over designed to allow a plane hit it would... again, they'd have assumed that core would be damaged.

There would be tell tale 'noise' of a pending collapse sequentially and loud but none were detected in the recorded 911 calls or by the firefighters below... aside from the actual event start which some say sounded like an explosion which is what collapse might sound like especially transferred down the core to the foundation.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

PS, in case you missed it, you need to get a fucking clue.

What on earth do Masters and Johnson have to do with this?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LunarRay

That also is obvious I won't disagree there.

But, they had to assume the 707 plane would have had fuel on board as well in their design criteria and ergo, a fire might occur. My point is: IF they considered a plane hit did they underestimate the damage that might occur or just why did the design not enable the building to stay up?

well, actually, the designer of the tower has stated that the towers weren't designed to withstand the impact, but they did calculations to see what the results might be and found they would stand up to an impact (he claims 200ish mph, the port authority claims 600 mph). he also said there was no study as to what would happen with the fire (and stated that there weren't any fire control systems at the time that could control such a fire anyway), though the port authority claims they did.

so, according to the designer, we've got it backward. the buildings weren't designed to hold up to a plane impact, but they did later calculations and determined that the buildings could withstand the impact.

Dang... 200 is almost stall speed in a 707... but ok. I wonder why Silverstein submitted a report? Probably to cover his bottom. I did hear an interview from the design guy saying he felt multiple hits could have occurred and the building should stand.. Fire had to be part of that, I'd think. I'll try to find that interview and listen closely.
Sounds like the PA is covering their butts too.

This puports to be the design folks.. I'm not sure yet..

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
You call it faith when someone trusts the 99% of engineers that agree with the official story...

I call it faith because you so obviously have no demonstrable basis for the percentage you claim. On the other hand, you refuse acknowledge your faith based arguments for what they are because you are a falser.

Where am I wrong. Put up, or shut up. You haven't posted one counter claim to what I've said, Rather you just say I'm crazy.

I said you are making faith based arguments, like the one above. I didn't call you crazy, but I suppose that is an applicable label for arguing against facts with faith.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Why are you still arguing? It's been 8 years.

It's only been 4 years since I saw the fall of WTC7, and prior to that promoting me to look into the matter I naively believed that others had explained the fall of the towers. After looking the available evidence, I admited I had been wrong, and only since then have I been arguing those who refuse to do the same. While you'd obviously like to ignore the facts and pretend they will go away, I've no interest in doing anything of the sort, and all your badgering me while ignoring the facts I present will do nothing to change that.

And how is your argument anything more then a faith based argument? You tell us "Trust me, it is physically impossible." But then when we say "Prove it" You say "It is Physically impossible."

You haven't provided a SINGLE piece of evidence to support any of your claims, and yet here you are saying that we are all operating on faith based claims.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Dang... 200 is almost stall speed in a 707... but ok. I wonder why Silverstein submitted a report? Probably to cover his bottom. I did hear an interview from the design guy saying he felt multiple hits could have occurred and the building should stand.. Fire had to be part of that, I'd think. I'll try to find that interview and listen closely.
Sounds like the PA is covering their butts too.

boeing chart states that approach speed for a 707 is 128 knots. that's 147 mph. and the plane isn't falling out of the air. so, obviously 200 mph is well above that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Dang... 200 is almost stall speed in a 707... but ok. I wonder why Silverstein submitted a report? Probably to cover his bottom. I did hear an interview from the design guy saying he felt multiple hits could have occurred and the building should stand.. Fire had to be part of that, I'd think. I'll try to find that interview and listen closely.
Sounds like the PA is covering their butts too.

boeing chart states that approach speed for a 707 is 128 knots. that's 147 mph. and the plane isn't falling out of the air. so, obviously 200 mph is well above that.

Approach.. ok... I meant with wheels up, no flaps... cruise speed at low altitude is like 230 kts ... I'd have to verify that. but I do see your point that if that low they'd have 40% flaps and gear down.

This puports to be the design folks.. I'm not sure yet..




kinda pretty link

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
What evidence do you have for a controlled demolition? There are thousands of videos that there that purport to show "squibs." Have you ever seen a controlled demolition of a building? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't really look like what's shown in the video. More importantly, those discharges fit much more closely with the mountain of evidence that the building crushed itself. As each floor collapsed, it forced the air out of that floor, causing debris to fly sideways.

In a controlled demolition like the one that supposedly happened at the WTC, explosives must be set off in a controlled manner and precisely timed. Videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNftLdtL49E merely point out things that seem out of place, but they do not explain what those are. Sure they could be explosions, but then you'd have to answer the following questions:

1) Give the precise nature of such a demolition, why are these mysterious explosions seemingly random? Why do they occur in places that are not collapsing? Why do they direct their out the windows with such force?

Who says they're random? Answer this question: does a controlled demolition collapse a building instantaneously, is is there a short delay between when the charges go off and when the structure collapses?

2) How does this fit in with the context we have? Considering truthers seem to believe that thermite was used in the demolition, then how are there explosions to begin with? Thermite doesn't explode.

And regular office fires don't cause modern steel-frame buildings to collapse. What's your point?

Speaking of context, why don't you just answer these questions for me (ripped from my post earlier in this thread):

Hey friend,

Okay, here are some easy questions for you. #4 is most pertinent to our conversation right now.

1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.

2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?

3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?

4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.

In the case of WTC7, why not hijack a 4th plane and hit it with that? If the government's intention was to make everyone believe that the planes brought down the WTC buildings, why leave #7 out? As you point out, it IS the most mysterious because, outside of falling rubble, it was not actually hit by anything. So... if you're planning this thing, why would you not simply hit the motherfucker with a plane, removing any doubt about why it came down? Why even make this a question? After planning such a massive operation, I don't see how the government could overlook something so simple as "oh, yeah we forgot to hit WTC 7 with anything, but we'll take it down with explosives... nobody will ask questions!"

5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.

What exactly blew up the building? Who exactly was involved? Would you rather have consult my crystal ball, or should it suffice to say that the ones who really know the answers aren't talking, and the ones who want to know can't conduct a forensic investigation when the evidence has been destroyed long ago?

Yup. Just like I thought.

You deflect, deny, and bounce questions back which translates to no proof of anything, no understanding of what happened and a firm denial of the fact that in 8 years, you truthers can't provide ONE thing that might even vaguely indicate that something other than planes brought down the WTC. It's all smoke, mirrors, and youtube videos whose goal are to distort reality and make mountains out of molehills.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks
um, because everyone does take option 3 even when there aren't really two sides? we saw planes hit buildings, they collapsed, another building caught debris and fire, and collapsed. All official reports confirm this. All accredited institutions confirm this. 99% of scientists and engineers confirm this.

And over here we have a small group of dissenters who after 8 years have no evidence.

People in the freakish minority always love to "teach the controversy." It was big tobacco's gameplan for decades, to have a "healthy debate" over whether smoking caused cancer. Intelligent Design folks use it too. But there aren't two sides to every argument. 8 years later, we are quite clear on what happened.

LMAO, you sound exactly like the wako interviewed by the media on that same day, claiming the towers collapsed, obviously due to the structural damage from the heat. I know people saw the planes hit the towers, and that towers collapsed shortly after. What I'm not seeing is a proof beyond reasonable doubt that the former caused the latter.

Still can't cite one credible group who agrees with you, can you? I can cite a few dozen who disagree. but come on, gimme an acronym (hums jeopardy theme)

Too bad your credible groups have been discredited on multiple occasions by those willing to question them.

You can't name anyone who actually specializes in this field and doesn't agree with the general premise of the NIST report. Again, guys like the aetruth guy don't count simply because he has zero credibility or true knowledge. He knows as much as the average joe about building collapses.

I just want to point out again that the pill you're swallowing basically indicts THOUSANDS of people into some sort of massive conspiracy that has covered itself up perfectly for eight years. Can't you see why this is so unbelievable and improbable, and why nobody believes the stuff truthers spew out of their mouths?

In my previous post, you completely ignored a fundamental problem in your theory. If thermite was used to demolish the towers, then you can't explain what your so-called "explosions" are either, because thermite doesn't blow up.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Yup. Just like I thought.

You deflect, deny, and bounce questions back which translates to no proof of anything, no understanding of what happened and a firm denial of the fact that in 8 years, you truthers can't provide ONE thing that might even vaguely indicate that something other than planes brought down the WTC. It's all smoke, mirrors, and youtube videos whose goal are to distort reality and make mountains out of molehills.

They believe their understanding of the truth is correct. They believe it so strongly they don't need to listen to contradictory facts or arguments; how could any facts possibly disprove something that they absolutely know is true? They've formed their belief, they'll reference whatever arguments they can to support it, facts that don't support it are dismissed, and what you're left with is an opinion that is held without regard to any contrary evidence. It's similar to the major truths espoused by religion.

And we're the ones "making faith based arguments"...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Yup. Just like I thought.

You deflect, deny, and bounce questions back which translates to no proof of anything, no understanding of what happened and a firm denial of the fact that in 8 years, you truthers can't provide ONE thing that might even vaguely indicate that something other than planes brought down the WTC. It's all smoke, mirrors, and youtube videos whose goal are to distort reality and make mountains out of molehills.

Incorrect. What there IS proof of is that the NIST investigation ignored or denied evidence such as molten steel found in the rubble weeks after the collapse... just to name one example. Even watching the body language of the NIST officials from the videos makes it seem like they're highly uncomfortable answering questions which go against their report. Now if you're looking for a forensic-evidence type of proof, then answer this:

Is there hard evidence proving that the buildings did collapse from the fire?
Is there proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks?
Is there proof that Iraq had WMD or was linked to the attacks on 9/11?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LegendKillerSince I work in NYC, I know many people who were actually IN the towers, ...and yet not a single one says anything about charges or controlled demolition.
...

This is not a fucking game, It is not something open to interpretation or to bandy about theories. It is not fodder for your insane imaginations.

It was an exceedingly hectic day, and an overwhelmingly emotional experience, so it's not surprising that many could be confused as to what actually happened. It's also not surprising that many would be adverse to acknowledging anything which contradicts the accepted conspiracy theory, as so many have found some level of solace and piece of mind in believing they have a solid understanding of what happened that day.

To everyone:

I'm simply noting the physical impossibility of fires causing a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration. I am not presenting an interpretation or a theory, nor am I imagining anything here, and I'm most certainly not playing any game. I'm talking about facts here, and the fact is that the official story of the fall of WTC7 is based in is physically impossible. Being aware of the relevant facts which prove this, deaning as much would require me to surrender a portion of my sanity to believe in Loony Tones physics, and your verbal pummelings aren't going to persuade me into doing anything of the sort.

So I beg you; please look at the facts I presented in the OP. Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

You have no basis to doubt intelligent people with no agenda that were actually there. Every single person you quote, "fact" you present, or rationale you provide are slanted. You ignore information because it suits your agenda.

You claim to be a physicist but you're really nobody at all. You have no formal education.

I also think you are gay. Why? Because you have looked at men. You've probably watched porn with men in it. You've probably hugged a man. You may be married, even have kids, but that doesn't matter, since gay men have marriages and kids, but are still gay.

There is far more information available that your gay than we possess that you aren't gay.

Prove you aren't gay.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: munky
Is there proof that Iraq had WMD or was linked to the attacks on 9/11?

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If we don't think Iraq had WMD, the WTC must obviously have been a planned demolition? Are you actually this retarded or do you just play one on the internet?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Yup. Just like I thought.

You deflect, deny, and bounce questions back which translates to no proof of anything, no understanding of what happened and a firm denial of the fact that in 8 years, you truthers can't provide ONE thing that might even vaguely indicate that something other than planes brought down the WTC. It's all smoke, mirrors, and youtube videos whose goal are to distort reality and make mountains out of molehills.

They believe their understanding of the truth is correct. They believe it so strongly they don't need to listen to contradictory facts or arguments; how could any facts possibly disprove something that they absolutely know is true? They've formed their belief, they'll reference whatever arguments they can to support it, facts that don't support it are dismissed, and what you're left with is an opinion that is held without regard to any contrary evidence. It's similar to the major truths espoused by religion.

And we're the ones "making faith based arguments"...

Usually folks go off on tangential journeys in an attempt to describe or show example to some event. That then becomes the issue but it don't relate directly to the investigation of the relevant issue.
I maintain that the facts in this case are contained in the envelope we can see, examine and extrapolate from or not.

The hypothesis is or ought to be The Plane hits building and causes structural damage and the associated fires caused the collapse.
What evidence is there and does that agree with the hypothesis or not? IF not, why not? IF we can't determine a nexus either way we put it aside as a footnote.

A logical first step would be to determine if the energy available to the building (its potential gravity energy) could do what we see it do. IF not, why not.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: munky
Is there proof that Iraq had WMD or was linked to the attacks on 9/11?

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If we don't think Iraq had WMD, the WTC must obviously have been a planned demolition? Are you actually this retarded or do you just play one on the internet?

Are you an ignorant moron, or just can't read? I'll even spell it out for you - you support and accept what the govt tells you without demanding proof.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: munky
Incorrect. What there IS proof of is that the NIST investigation ignored or denied evidence such as molten steel found in the rubble weeks after the collapse...

actually...

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I don't think there is a big difference tween the 707/767.

....The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707)...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: munky
Is there proof that Iraq had WMD or was linked to the attacks on 9/11?

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If we don't think Iraq had WMD, the WTC must obviously have been a planned demolition? Are you actually this retarded or do you just play one on the internet?

Are you an ignorant moron, or just can't read? I'll even spell it out for you - you support and accept what the govt tells you without demanding proof.

Wrong. I NEVER thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I ALWAYS thought the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and I ALWAYS maintained it was done for false pretenses. I also questioned the official story about 9/11. And then I read the science. And I saw experiments that duplicated the conditions that existed in the towers. And I saw the scientific community of architects, engineers and demolitions experts come out in support of the official 9/11 story. And that made me think "OK, the official story is accurate." That's not "supporting and accepting what the govt tells me without demanding proof." That is "supporting and accepting what the govt tells me when they provide proof backed up by an overwhelming majority of the expert community on such matters." Learn the difference.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

You have no basis to doubt intelligent people with no agenda that were actually there. Every single person you quote, "fact" you present, or rationale you provide are slanted. You ignore information because it suits your agenda.

I don't see how proximity provides credibility to issues not related to proximity.
Most of the eyewitness evidence comes from ... eye witnesses. It is what it is. I, for instance, hear a fellow say "I heard an explosion"... right... I hear explosions when I drop a brick on the ground.. ya need a bit more than that to establish an explosion caused by TNT or what ever, made the sound.
All testimony is slanted by some bias, however slight. The only evidences not 'slanted' are those that are tests done under scientific methods and the like.
Ignoring anything that could reasonably be construed as evidence is simply bad juju.

For instance, testing the floor collapse theory might provide evidence to support that hypothesis or it may not. IF it don't do you reject it?
Structural Engineer X opines... opines that he sees pulverized concrete blowing out of the towers floor by floor. Does the physical evidence support that? IF it does do you then determine something from that? Or do you say.. I saw a building demo'd and the same thing happened but there were no fires so it don't relate?
That is what is going on in this thread.
I think we should take one item at a time and have a nice package and by Christmas [ all dressed up in our gay apparel] what we have is not going to change a thing.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: munky
Incorrect. What there IS proof of is that the NIST investigation ignored or denied evidence such as molten steel found in the rubble weeks after the collapse...

actually...

So it doesn't raise your suspicion to see claims such as:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)?who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards?found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

You have no basis to doubt intelligent people with no agenda that were actually there. Every single person you quote, "fact" you present, or rationale you provide are slanted. You ignore information because it suits your agenda.

I don't see how proximity provides credibility to issues not related to proximity.
Most of the eyewitness evidence comes from ... eye witnesses. It is what it is. I, for instance, hear a fellow say "I heard an explosion"... right... I hear explosions when I drop a brick on the ground.. ya need a bit more than that to establish an explosion caused by TNT or what ever, made the sound.
All testimony is slanted by some bias, however slight. The only evidences not 'slanted' are those that are tests done under scientific methods and the like.
Ignoring anything that could reasonably be construed as evidence is simply bad juju.

For instance, testing the floor collapse theory might provide evidence to support that hypothesis or it may not. IF it don't do you reject it?
Structural Engineer X opines... opines that he sees pulverized concrete blowing out of the towers floor by floor. Does the physical evidence support that? IF it does do you then determine something from that? Or do you say.. I saw a building demo'd and the same thing happened but there were no fires so it don't relate?
That is what is going on in this thread.
I think we should take one item at a time and have a nice package and by Christmas [ all dressed up in our gay apparel] what we have is not going to change a thing.

I know about dozens of people who were either in the towers, within blocks of the towers, or inside of buildings next to the towers. Not a SINGLE ONE heard explosions or thinks that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes.

Just because the buildings could theoretically have fallen another way does not mean they did.

Yet you, a theorist, can disprove ALL evidence contrary to your assertions, why? Because you have a YouTube physics education, or read some slanted website treating hypothesis as fact? You're full of shit.

Anything could have happened in those buildings BUT explosions. Shit happens. Just because it does happen doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Obviously people like you don't know about Occam's Razor.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

I know about dozens of people who were either in the towers, within blocks of the towers, or inside of buildings next to the towers. Not a SINGLE ONE heard explosions or thinks that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes.

Well, I do too. There are videos as well of people on site saying they did hear explosions but as I said and maybe you missed it but that don't mean TNT. It could be anything really. What people think is what they think. It is why we have the 911 Commission and NIST and others.

Just because the buildings could theoretically have fallen another way does not mean they did.

My hypothesis is that the Terrorist driven Planes hitting the building and the fires that caused resulted in the collapse. What ever evidence does not agree with that hypothesis needs being looked at and dismissed if possible or footnoted if it does not and is not material to the hypothesis OR if it is deemed material it may question the hypothesis' validity and that is a normal process.

Yet you, a theorist, can disprove ALL evidence contrary to your assertions, why? Because you have a YouTube physics education, or read some slanted website treating hypothesis as fact? You're full of shit.

Facts not in evidence and be nice! When I treat you less that I wish to be treated then have at it. Until then we can discuss forever and I'll not once be less than cordial to you.

Anything could have happened in those buildings BUT explosions. Shit happens. Just because it does happen doesn't make it a conspiracy.

I think, as I said above! I don't see how asking a question indicates more than trying to understand something unknown or not fully known by me. I don't think all data found in the sewer is worthless. I've more than once had to 'fish' out of a sewer valuable ummm stuff.

Obviously people like you don't know about Occam's Razor.
I use Gillett but if you recommend Occam's type... I'll try it.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Yup. Just like I thought.

You deflect, deny, and bounce questions back which translates to no proof of anything, no understanding of what happened and a firm denial of the fact that in 8 years, you truthers can't provide ONE thing that might even vaguely indicate that something other than planes brought down the WTC. It's all smoke, mirrors, and youtube videos whose goal are to distort reality and make mountains out of molehills.

They believe their understanding of the truth is correct. They believe it so strongly they don't need to listen to contradictory facts or arguments; how could any facts possibly disprove something that they absolutely know is true? They've formed their belief, they'll reference whatever arguments they can to support it, facts that don't support it are dismissed, and what you're left with is an opinion that is held without regard to any contrary evidence. It's similar to the major truths espoused by religion.

And we're the ones "making faith based arguments"...

tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

You have no basis to doubt intelligent people with no agenda that were actually there. Every single person you quote, "fact" you present, or rationale you provide are slanted. You ignore information because it suits your agenda.

I don't see how proximity provides credibility to issues not related to proximity.
Most of the eyewitness evidence comes from ... eye witnesses. It is what it is. I, for instance, hear a fellow say "I heard an explosion"... right... I hear explosions when I drop a brick on the ground.. ya need a bit more than that to establish an explosion caused by TNT or what ever, made the sound.
All testimony is slanted by some bias, however slight. The only evidences not 'slanted' are those that are tests done under scientific methods and the like.
Ignoring anything that could reasonably be construed as evidence is simply bad juju.

For instance, testing the floor collapse theory might provide evidence to support that hypothesis or it may not. IF it don't do you reject it?
Structural Engineer X opines... opines that he sees pulverized concrete blowing out of the towers floor by floor. Does the physical evidence support that? IF it does do you then determine something from that? Or do you say.. I saw a building demo'd and the same thing happened but there were no fires so it don't relate?
That is what is going on in this thread.
I think we should take one item at a time and have a nice package and by Christmas [ all dressed up in our gay apparel] what we have is not going to change a thing.

I know about dozens of people who were either in the towers, within blocks of the towers, or inside of buildings next to the towers. Not a SINGLE ONE heard explosions or thinks that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes.

Just because the buildings could theoretically have fallen another way does not mean they did.

Yet you, a theorist, can disprove ALL evidence contrary to your assertions, why? Because you have a YouTube physics education, or read some slanted website treating hypothesis as fact? You're full of shit.

Anything could have happened in those buildings BUT explosions. Shit happens. Just because it does happen doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Obviously people like you don't know about Occam's Razor.

occams razor....right!

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

rj lee report- more extremely high temps (independent investigation)
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC...20Morphology.Final.pdf

so could cause these extremly high temps:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


The Top Ten Connections Between
NIST and Nano-Thermites
http://911review.com/articles/...ermite_connection.html


and why trust NIST:

NIST and Scientific Fraud

"With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST?s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.

Before going into details, let me point out that, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with ?distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.? By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. [10]

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been ?fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,? with the result that scientists working for NIST ?lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ?hired guns.??11 Referring in particular to NIST?s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget---?an arm of the Executive Office of the President,? which ?had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST?s] work.? [12]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i...p?context=va&aid=15201

occams razor?????? ok thats a good one...

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: crazydude
...

The credibility of your sources is laughable.