What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

You truthers all have something in common. You don't really care about what you don't believe, because you believe something else. You haven't spent months on this to simply try and disprove the official story. Why not just come out of your closet and say what it is you believe?

You Non-Truthers also have something in common! You accept the NIST folks have a good reason to deny access to the numbers they've developed to conclude as they do. What insight does anyone have to the SIM inners?

 

[Number1]

Rather, I'm aware of the fact that the official story contradicts long understood and constantly demonstrable laws of physics, and that fact is the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about beliefs, please make your own thread.

The official explanation has not been proven wrong. It is YOUR belief that it is wrong.

You also keep repeating the same mantra: "constantly demonstrable laws of physic" That's just like saying 2+2 constantly equal 4. LOL
and the proper word should be conSIStantly dumb ass.

Keep the faith Kyle.

 

[LunarRay]

The official explanation has not been proven wrong. It is YOUR belief that it is wrong.

You also keep repeating the same mantra: "constantly demonstrable laws of physic" That's just like saying 2+2 constantly equal 4. LOL
and the proper word should be conSIStantly dumb ass.

Keep the faith Kyle.

I don't think you can claim that the 'Official' version of events has been Proved either. It is simply a hypothesis that they suggest is the most probable answer... even though they omit empirical evidence for and against their theory.

 

[kylebisme]

Keep the faith Kyle.

Drop the denial, and the nitpicking the effects of my dyslexia, Number.

 

[kylebisme]

I don't think you can claim that the 'Official' version of events has been Proved either.

Well one can claim anything he wants, but one can't prove the official version true, as it is flagrantly false.

 

[Ozoned]

You Non-Truthers also have something in common! You accept the NIST folks have a good reason to deny access to the numbers they've developed to conclude as they do. What insight does anyone have to the SIM inners?

This isn't about nist. Snowman has tunnel vision. He believes what he believes, and there isn't a force in the world that could draw him away from that. He DOESN'T (ever) present things in a way that allows folks to come to their own conclusion. That is what is odd about this thread, because snowman simply does not care if others engage in critical thinking.

With out that, what possible motive would one have to spend "months" preparing this thread, and then posting it here?

Why can't he just say what he thinks happened? What is he afraid of?

 

[MikeMike]

The big bad wolf huffed and puffed and blew the towers down.

 

[First]

lmao. The forums go down for a week and the pussy still can't quantify the mass of resistive force nor point out how his HS-level physics formulas disprove free fall at WTC7. I honestly never thought dyslexia affected critical thinking this badly.

 

[LunarRay]

This isn't about nist. Snowman has tunnel vision. He believes what he believes, and there isn't a force in the world that could draw him away from that. He DOESN'T (ever) present things in a way that allows folks to come to their own conclusion. That is what is odd about this thread, because snowman simply does not care if others engage in critical thinking.

With out that, what possible motive would one have to spend "months" preparing this thread, and then posting it here?

Why can't he just say what he thinks happened? What is he afraid of?

Oh... I see, I think :+)

You think he should say that WTC 7 was demolished in a manner consistent with a Controlled Demolition. And, he should cite as the reasons for this opinion the evidence contained in the videos, the Thermite found at the site, eye witness observations of molten something at the site, The Jennings interview, and the apparent absence of those bits, among others I suspect, in their (NIST) findings. Perhaps, NIST's failure to disclose the make up of the SIM that lead them to conclude as they did might be seen as Non-Scientific or even a desire to hold their conclusion up to faith versus Scientific scrutiny.

 

[event8horizon]

i just noticed that ae911truth.org is up to 952 architectural and engineering professionals!!

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i wonder if that is more than nist has?

 

[LunarRay]

lmao. The forums go down for a week and the pussy still can't quantify the mass of resistive force nor point out how his HS-level physics formulas disprove free fall at WTC7. I honestly never thought dyslexia affected critical thinking this badly.

Not sure you've worded that as you intended but no matter... There was no resistive force if there was Free-Fall and I am convinced there was Free-Fall for more than 2 seconds with WTC7. It has been measured and I think NIST agrees.

 

[LunarRay]

i just noticed that ae911truth.org is up to 952 architectural and engineering professionals!!

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i wonder if that is more than nist has?

I think the Consulting Engineers on the NIST payroll are qualified to render an opinion based on the data they are using to render that opinion... The key is, what data did they evaluate? And, what data are the AE911Truth folks evaluating to arrive at theirs...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I don't think you can claim that the 'Official' version of events has been Proved either. It is simply a hypothesis that they suggest is the most probable answer... even though they omit empirical evidence for and against their theory.

The same thing can be claimed for Einstein's General and Special Theories as well as basic atomic theory, quantum theory, evolution, black holes...the list could go on. None of it truly has been proven. They are merely the best explanations we have. If someone can come up with a better explanation than any of those, and plainly prove it, science will have to accept it.

All the truthers have to do is come up with a better hypothesis and plainly prove that hypothesis. The problem is that when we ask any truther in here what their hypothesis is they don't provide any answer. Instead they behave like Creationists, seemingly believing that if they can throw doubt on the "official story" it somehow validates their version of events, whatever that version may be, since they won't tell anyone what they believe.

Considering that, tell me which "story" sounds the most reasonable.

 

[kylebisme]

He believes what he believes, and there isn't a force in the world that could draw him away from that.

Again, I'm down with talking about beliefs. I'm also open to revising them in the faces of new information. But again, this thread is about the facts of the fall of WTC7, which makes discussion of beliefs off topic here.

He DOESN'T (ever) present things in a way that allows folks to come to their own conclusion.

How in the world do you figure my presentation has any effect on others ability to come to their own conclusion?

That is what is odd about this thread, because snowman simply does not care if others engage in critical thinking.

Actually, it bothers me that most people aren't engaging in critical thinking here.

With out that, what possible motive would one have to spend "months" preparing this thread, and then posting it here?

How did you imagine I spent anything more than the minutes preparing this thread which I did?

Why can't he just say what he thinks happened? What is he afraid of?

It's not a matter of fear, but rather a matter of being comfortable with the fact that I'm in no position to know how WTC7 came down beyond the extent I've already explained.

 

[LunarRay]

The big bad wolf huffed and puffed and blew the towers down.

I think the towers were designed to withstand significant wind forces... hurricane force as I recall.. Wolves don't generate that amount of force from their diaphragm pressure alone... some other yet to be determined energy must have been employed if the Wolf theory is true.

 

[kylebisme]

The wolf story makes as much sense as the official one.

 

[MotF Bane]

i just noticed that ae911truth.org is up to 952 architectural and engineering professionals!!

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i wonder if that is more than nist has?

Or have those 952 provided proof of their supposed qualifications?

 

[BeauJangles]

i just noticed that ae911truth.org is up to 952 architectural and engineering professionals!!

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i wonder if that is more than nist has?

ASCE has 147,000 members.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

i just noticed that ae911truth.org is up to 952 architectural and engineering professionals!!

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i wonder if that is more than nist has?

How many working professionals does ae911truth.org have? How many are actually retired or are in school and don't really have their credentials yet?

And if you want make a real comparison, how about comparing how many structural engineers and architectural engineers there are overall, then ask how many of those are members of ae911truth.org. iirc, some at JREF did that and estimated that your organizational appeal to authority consists of something less than .01% of all professionals in that line of work. That was just in the US. Worldwide it's even less.

Not very impressive, nor does it say much when taken in actual context since 99.99% haven't felt compelled by the evidence to join the CTs.

 

[LunarRay]

The same thing can be claimed for Einstein's General and Special Theories as well as basic atomic theory, quantum theory, evolution, black holes...the list could go on. None of it truly has been proven. They are merely the best explanations we have. If someone can come up with a better explanation than any of those, and plainly prove it, science will have to accept it.

All the truthers have to do is come up with a better hypothesis and plainly prove that hypothesis. The problem is that when we ask any truther in here what their hypothesis is they don't provide any answer. Instead they behave like Creationists, seemingly believing that if they can throw doubt on the "official story" it somehow validates their version of events, whatever that version may be, since they won't tell anyone what they believe.

Considering that, tell me which "story" sounds the most reasonable.

Considering what you stated then I'd have to say the "Official" version sounds more reasonable... However, the Truthers do have a Hypothesis or maybe Hypotheses regarding the WTC7 event and the entire 9/11 tragedy. They have provided evidence. I think it is in HOW that evidence is interpreted that the main argument centers. NIST does not include what they say is anecdotal evidence while Truthers say it is prima facie evidence. NIST supporters see the same evidence as Truthers and dismiss it while Truther Experts define it to be empirical and so obvious that to dismiss it defines the agenda of NIST to be supportive of some other Agenda not palatable to the common citizen...

I can argue words all day long but can I argue against Scientists... yes, but only the words they use.. not the logic and science they employ to develop those words... I defer to Science cuz I am not independently able to refute them or agree them. How can a person like me hear two scientists (assume no other bias) say two different diametrically apposed results of the same bit of evidence? I have to hold out until something convinces me one way or another.. as yet.. regarding WTC7... I'm not convinced one way or another.. I think many folks could rightly adopt that stance... imo, anyhow.

 

[LunarRay]

How many working professionals does ae911truth.org have? How many are actually retired or are in school and don't really have their credentials yet?

And if you want make a real comparison, how about comparing how many structural engineers and architectural engineers there are overall, then ask how many of those are members of ae911truth.org. iirc, some at JREF did that and estimated that your organizational appeal to authority consists of something less than .01% of all professionals in that line of work. That was just in the US. Worldwide it's even less.

Not very impressive, nor does it say much when taken in actual context since 99.99% haven't felt compelled by the evidence to join the CTs.

According to their site they have verified the 952 and those awaiting verification are significantly more.. They have about 6000 total.. They are not going to count a person who does not meet the academic or professional standing they profess to have. (a quote sort of... )
I think the only way to be fair in what you propose is to list who agree and who disagree and who have not provided an opinion for what ever reason.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Considering what you stated then I'd have to say the "Official" version sounds more reasonable... However, the Truthers do have a Hypothesis or maybe Hypotheses regarding the WTC7 event and the entire 9/11 tragedy. They have provided evidence. I think it is in HOW that evidence is interpreted that the main argument centers. NIST does not include what they say is anecdotal evidence while Truthers say it is prima facie evidence. NIST supporters see the same evidence as Truthers and dismiss it while Truther Experts define it to be empirical and so obvious that to dismiss it defines the agenda of NIST to be supportive of some other Agenda not palatable to the common citizen...

I can argue words all day long but can I argue against Scientists... yes, but only the words they use.. not the logic and science they employ to develop those words... I defer to Science cuz I am not independently able to refute them or agree them. How can a person like me hear two scientists (assume no other bias) say two different diametrically apposed
results of the same bit of evidence? I have to hold out until something convinces me one way or another.. as yet.. regarding WTC7... I'm not convinced one way or another.. I think many folks could rightly adopt that stance... imo, anyhow.

What evidence do truthers have that hasn't been debunked or hasn't been shown to be seriously lacking?

 

[LunarRay]

ASCE has 147,000 members.

A colony of Ants might have significantly more than them... it only matters if one or the other contributes in some way to the debate.

 

[event8horizon]

I think the Consulting Engineers on the NIST payroll are qualified to render an opinion based on the data they are using to render that opinion... The key is, what data did they evaluate? And, what data are the AE911Truth folks evaluating to arrive at theirs...

im guessing that you havent looked at the "data" from their website yet?

 

[LunarRay]

What evidence do truthers have that hasn't been debunked or hasn't been shown to be seriously lacking?

Again, that is a matter of one's opinion that a debunkation has occurred. Two equally expert scientists postulating opposing argument on any topic will result is both sides claiming 'victory' (global warming :+) ).
ATM, is the peer reviewed Thermate paper... both sides see it differently...
So, just cuz some NASA kid says "xyz" about some professor's work don't make him right or her right.. but someone may be right... It is all about how it is viewed... Dark Energy must be there... so must a tenth planet then... ... That is my point.