Why is that.......

Sure did.

reply to post by vipertech0596


I live in New Jersey about 15 miles west of New York City

Passaic River bisects town - fortunately live on ridge several hundred feet above river . If water gets this far really
are in deep S***.....

Lower part of town is flooding

If it wasnt a demolition, what brought down WTC 7 then? If WTC 7 collapsed because of "fire and damage", where is the burning pile of rubble immediately after the collapse?

reply to post by Cassius666

Sure did. If it wasnt a demolition, what brought down WTC 7 then? If WTC 7 collapsed because of "fire and damage", where is the burning pile of rubble immediately after the collapse?

Looks like burning pile of debris here



If not burning why is all that smoke ?

That is the inferno that brought down WTC 7? Are you just being facetious now?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it that the mass media makes mistakes on EVERY major news story day [...] and that is expected and accepted? [...]

It ist not. In the real world journalists lose their credibility... MSM lacks real journalism these days.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it when it takes professional demolition crews MONTHS to wire small buildings for demolition, people think that both Towers and WTC7 were wired in less than a day, why is that?

Who does think that the WTC-Towers were wired in less than a day?
The point is that BECAUSE it takes a long time to prepare controlled demolitions, it is impossible that WTC 7 was "pulled" within hours, as Larry Silverstein said.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why is it, that when throughout history engineering projects prove to have fatal flaws (Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, KC Hyatt walkways, Ford Pinto), people will accept the word of an engineer that a building would survive being hit by an airliner without question, why is that?

Its not "the word of an engineer"... its the mayority of the worlds engineers and not "whithout question" but backed by evidence and scientific proof.

Now I ask you this:
Why is it that you can talk with people from all over the world and the vast mayority looks at the US official story and calls BS... its only US citizens who are in denial of the overwhelming evidence that the OS cannot be true.

reply to post by Cassius666


Typical conspiracy loon response when caught in a lie....

You stated

where is the burning pile of rubble immediately after the collapse

I showed you the pictures of the burning rubble afterwards.....

Now claiming that the building was not burning before?

www.911myths.com...

Plenty of footage from various angles showing WTC 7 on fire

Whats your next idiotic response? Calim that WTC 7 didnt exist......

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Typical conspiracy loon response when caught in a lie....

Typical attempt of a 911 denier to make a point.

Okay what I should have said is, where is the fire that brought down a friggin skyscraper? You point out a video that shows the building engulfed in smoke and some rooms are on fire, not even whole floors and also not down below where the fires supposedly heated the pillars to the point of collapse and then say, "there are the fires which brought down WTC 7. Cant you see it? Why cant you see it?"


Or can you tell me what that fire has to do with the base of the pillar weakening to the point of total collapse?

www.911myths.com... (see videos 8 through 11).

Like most Ufo videos, it looks very convincing at first, but does not hold up to closer scrutinity.

This thread reminds me of a Bill O Riely interview where he just screams at the person trying to finish a sentence and you wonder "what was the point of that?"
I wish everyone would stop pretending that they knew what happened that day because they've done internet "research". The only way to know would be if someone came out and said "I did it." Otherwise, the next best thing would be finding conclusive evidence, like pictures of the explosives in the buildings.
But at this point, if you really wanted to prove your hypotheses, you would do what a real scientist does when trying to prove something, which is run multiple experiments and see what happens. They don't just talk to other scientists and ask what they think would happen. Why don't you build a little ground zero and recreate the whole event 100 times to scale? If the little buildings fall just like they did that day even once without explosives, then its possible there was no conspiracy and you can actually have something to back up your argument besides opinions.

reply to post by GenRadek

Maybe when people have a pretty good idea its gonna collapse because all the signs are pointing to a collapse, and they warn, be careful, that thing is gonna collapse, that is called making an educated observation.

Except that no expert would predict that a skyscraper could fall from fire damage. An educated observation would be "there is a burning building".

This is like someone mistakenly "predicting" a stock market crash due to a random computer system failure a day before it happens as though it has already happened. There is no "educated guess" that can predict something like that. The only "educated guess" is that it won't.

reply to post by loucares

But at this point, if you really wanted to prove your hypotheses, you would do what a real scientist does when trying to prove something, which is run multiple experiments and see what happens. They don't just talk to other scientists and ask what they think would happen.

Wow, someone gets it!

Why don't you build a little ground zero and recreate the whole event 100 times to scale?

It would have to be a little more detailed careful like that, because not everything scales at the same rate. But there are good reasons to believe that no system can naturally behave the way the towers fell.

Originally posted by loucaresBut at this point, if you really wanted to prove your hypotheses, you would do what a real scientist does when trying to prove something, which is run multiple experiments and see what happens.

Ok cool I'll get right on that...oh...oh wait, they destroyed all the evidence. Guess we can't do that :/

Building a scale model and testing it? Yeah that would go down well with OSers - "Pfft that means nothing, its 1:100 scale so the physics are different. And you didn't get the angle of the plane quite right. And the wind was all wrong".

So since we are talking about fires bringing down buildings, lets take a look at some recent examples:


Before.


During.


After.

Note how the fire is much worse than that seen in any of the WTC buildings. Note how the building has not fully collapsed afterwards. Note how the parts that have collapsed didn't collapse neatly into the footprint.

Of course that isn't a skyscraper so perhaps that changes things.

I like this one better



I am not a pyromaniac. Buuuut

pretty

Also how do you light up a building like an effing blowtorch?

reply to post by loucares

Originally posted by loucares
[...]the next best thing would be finding conclusive evidence [...] if you really wanted to prove your hypotheses, you would do what a real scientist does when trying to prove something, which is run multiple experiments and see what happens.

Well, real scientists already did exactly this and presented the evidence.
We already have ascertainable knowledge about building's statics or the melting temperature of steel.
An independent investigation is all everybody asks for and it would blow the NIST report out of the water... and thats exactly why said investigation isnt going to happen anytime soon - at least not in the USA.

Originally posted by loucares
This thread reminds me of a Bill O Riely interview where he just screams at the person trying to finish a sentence and you wonder "what was the point of that?"
I wish everyone would stop pretending that they knew what happened that day because they've done internet "research". The only way to know would be if someone came out and said "I did it."

They did. Case closed.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


I take it according to you pictures of UFOs and aliens are evidence we have been visited then.

reply to post by ColCurious


Do you mean a study like this: Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1? Which also concluded that the buildings would collapse, even though they think it happened a bit differently compared to NIST theory?

Study? Make your own experiment. You like BBQ? Dose it in fuel set it on fire, keep dosing it in fuel and tell us how long it took for the steel to weaken to the point of collapse.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Study? Make your own experiment. You like BBQ? Dose it in fuel set it on fire, keep dosing it in fuel and tell us how long it took for the steel to weaken to the point of collapse.

You realize, of course, that this has nothing to do with 9/11? But, if you must, then before you douse your BBQ carefully measure it in all dimensions. Very careful measurements, to tenths and hundreds of an inch or whatever system of measurement you prefer. Then heat your BBQ. Tell me how long before those measurements change. Based on your assertions heated metal never deforms so there should be absolustely no variation in any of the measurements.

Heated metal does deform. The reason the BBQ grill and steelframe buildings dont collapse from fire is that the people who design either know that and take that into account.

But it does not matter what you say. I dont mean to sound harsh but you are a nobody on the internet. You could be a noble price winner, but chances are equally great, that you are a high school dropout.

So I will have to go with what engineers and architects say on that subject.