My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
MI5 did use the term "collapse on its own footprint" it was YOU who said it couldnt be applied because there was minor debris (in comparison to the entire structure of WTC7) that had spilled over...

Care to share where I said that? Or are you making this up? (no need to answer).

OS'er such as yourself live in a fairytale world where you must resort to childish play on semantics in order to maintain your false sense of security whenever valid points are brought up to OS'ers you guys just use ridiculous technicalities to "debunk" evidence.

I really wonder how you can read the conversation I had with MI5 and then conclude that not he, but I am childish. I really wonder what is going on in your brain. How you totally missed that he dodged any question I threw at him.

Just take a look around at your world today. Private Military Corporations are the core of our economy and have been reaping the rewards since 9/11, the people in TRUEpower now have the ground work to imprison/assassinate political dissidents ref. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2012, ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT, PATRIOT ACT, FEDERAL RESTRICTED BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT ACT. The war in the middle east continues to grow, as recent as April the white house was saying Tehran (thats in Iran in case your ignorance has denied you the knowledge of geography) had a play in training the 9/11 Hijackers. So tell me how is it that you believe the Conspiracy Theory that 19 Muslim Fanatics living in caves were able to plot out and execute the most devastating attack on one of the worlds most sophisticated military defense systems in the world because they hate our freedoms?

So because the world is screwed up, 911 was an inside job. Great argument. Do you really believe they lived in caves or did you read that on some silly conspiracy site?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

 

So, is "minor debris spilling over" the official evidence denial statement? You now seem to accept that the building collapsed outside its footprint, but you are reverting back to your original opinion by glossing it over with labeling the material outside the footprint as "minor debris."

I heard the same thing from the people saying that the damage caused by Tower 1 to WTC 7 was minimal. They kept saying "minor damage," when firefighters were very, very clear on the extent of the visible damage. They did not stutter. They described it for what it was, and it was not pretty.

I'd like to see how far people will go to continue holding their illogically based beliefs.

My statement does not state that I am accepting that it did not collapse in its own footprint, it very much did. What my statement was saying is that the fact that minimal debris spilled over (marginal in comparison to the entire mass WTC7) does not provide evidence that it did not collapse into its own footprint, understand?

As for the firefighters reporting there was extensive physical damage I can accept that point although I havent seen such a video/statement- using FDNY as reference what do you have to say about the multiple reports from FDNY that there was explosions prior to and during WTC7 collapse?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup
MI5 did use the term "collapse on its own footprint" it was YOU who said it couldnt be applied because there was minor debris (in comparison to the entire structure of WTC7) that had spilled over...

Care to share where I said that? Or are you making this up? (no need to answer).

OS'er such as yourself live in a fairytale world where you must resort to childish play on semantics in order to maintain your false sense of security whenever valid points are brought up to OS'ers you guys just use ridiculous technicalities to "debunk" evidence.

I really wonder how you can read the conversation I had with MI5 and then conclude that not he, but I am childish. I really wonder what is going on in your brain. How you totally missed that he dodged any question I threw at him.

Just take a look around at your world today. Private Military Corporations are the core of our economy and have been reaping the rewards since 9/11, the people in TRUEpower now have the ground work to imprison/assassinate political dissidents ref. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2012, ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT, PATRIOT ACT, FEDERAL RESTRICTED BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT ACT. The war in the middle east continues to grow, as recent as April the white house was saying Tehran (thats in Iran in case your ignorance has denied you the knowledge of geography) had a play in training the 9/11 Hijackers. So tell me how is it that you believe the Conspiracy Theory that 19 Muslim Fanatics living in caves were able to plot out and execute the most devastating attack on one of the worlds most sophisticated military defense systems in the world because they hate our freedoms?

So because the world is screwed up, 911 was an inside job. Great argument. Do you really believe they lived in caves or did you read that on some silly conspiracy site?

edit on 15-5-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

No you ignorant- my point is not that since the world is screwed up 9/11 was an inside job... my point is that all of those events and laws passed are/were a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks.

Just try and stop jumping to conclusions and actually THINK- then maybe just then you might be able to perform some sort of constructive response

reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup


I am just pointing out your flawed reasoning. There it no logical line of reasoning between people taking advantage of an event, and those same people causing that event. And that is basically what you are trying to do.

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

disagree with? What I did was reference Jowenko's belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition a view that I agree with. What you and other "debunkers" keep bringing up, an irrelevant topic on this thread- again read the title im sure you might get it sooner or later, is Jowenko's view on WTC1 and WTC2.

Your logic is flawed in that you believe that in order to use a reference you must agree with everything that one person says. If that is the case then we would NEVER learn anything from anyone unless we live in a world of uniform thought and beliefs.....

Okay, I can't keep showing you why your thinking is flawed here, so feel free to believe what you want. Suffice to say that it's heavily ironic that you use a source purely for its authority with which you ultimately don't even agree.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Hey!!!!

Let's discuss the topic and not each other!!!
Any further bickering will be removed.......


We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on Mon May 14 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

Being a mod i'm sure you are fully aware that it's generally trolls/shills that are the ones that instigate name calling and deliberately go off topic to derail threads. Please be more pro-active in removing the trolls/shills from then 9/11 forum. If we know who they are and what they are doing then surely you must know too?

Originally posted by 4hero
Being a mod i'm sure you are fully aware that it's generally trolls/shills that are the ones that instigate name calling and deliberately go off topic to derail threads. Please be more pro-active in removing the trolls/shills from then 9/11 forum. If we know who they are and what they are doing then surely you must know too?

Surely as an intelligent member of the human race, you are aware that using the terms "troll" and "shill" are instances of name-calling? You are calling members of this board those names simply for the offense of disagreeing. That is an ad hominem fallacy, and it has no place in the 9/11 boards, don't you agree? How about we stop using names on both sides of the argument.

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Hey!!!!

Let's discuss the topic and not each other!!!
Any further bickering will be removed.......


We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on Mon May 14 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

Being a mod i'm sure you are fully aware that it's generally trolls/shills that are the ones that instigate name calling and deliberately go off topic to derail threads. Please be more pro-active in removing the trolls/shills from then 9/11 forum. If we know who they are and what they are doing then surely you must know too?

I agree with you. It is simple to identify these trolls; they invariably target the person and using baiting tactics. If you attend to their demands and respond to their query, they move on and bicker over another. You will see the same two or three individuals operating in tandems and doing everything they can to sabotage discourse and reduce it to bickering.

Most people react to provocations and one particular side is wholly dependent on antagonising the other to bring about this outcome. I have recently commented on 9/11 for the first time and and was set up on by two individuals who aggressive and unpleasant. I was even told that I couldn't have an opinion unless I am a published specialist.

The above behaviour is indicative of shill activity that seeks to rail road debate. The fact that ATS allows this disruption to continue means that it occurs with their blessings or those in charge can not detect campaigns being orchestrated under their noses.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

doing everything they can to sabotage discourse

You write this as someone who asserted a very serious allegation and then point-blank refused to provide evidence for it. That is sabotaging discourse.

If you term a robust examination of your arguments aggression, then I would have to say that - in a similar manner to 4hero - you are pretending that your opponents are acting in bad faith in order to avoid answering their critique.

What I am wondering is why I see people moaning about irrelevant nonsense, instead of answering relevant questions. Questions like what exactly is meant by "in its own footprint" and explaining why it is relevant. Or providing relevant evidence for claims that NIST forgot to model important parts building 7. Instead, the topic is how one person perceives another person. Well, I guess that is more important to some people.

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup


No you ignorant- my point is not that since the world is screwed up 9/11 was an inside job... my point is that all of those events and laws passed are/were a result of the 9/11 terrorists attacks.

Actually that doesn't appear to be your point at all. Let's look at what you wrote:

Just take a look around at your world today. Private Military Corporations are the core of our economy and have been reaping the rewards since 9/11, the people in TRUEpower now have the ground work to imprison/assassinate political dissidents ref. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2012, ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT, PATRIOT ACT, FEDERAL RESTRICTED BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT ACT. The war in the middle east continues to grow, as recent as April the white house was saying Tehran (thats in Iran in case your ignorance has denied you the knowledge of geography) had a play in training the 9/11 Hijackers. So tell me how is it that you believe the Conspiracy Theory that 19 Muslim Fanatics living in caves were able to plot out and execute the most devastating attack on one of the worlds most sophisticated military defense systems in the world because they hate our freedoms?

You are explicitly connecting those events to 9/11 and saying that you therefore find it difficult to believe what you call "The OS". You even write "So tell me..." which is a shorthand for "as a result of this..."

Why would you feel the need to mischaracterise your argument? Is it because actually the 'evidence' you are employing is in fact merely circumstantial and there is no logically solid link between the state of the "world today" and believing 9/11 to be an inside job?

Just try and stop jumping to conclusions and actually THINK- then maybe just then you might be able to perform some sort of constructive response

There are complaints about civility in this thread from debunkers. I'm not seeing it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
What I am wondering is why I see people moaning about irrelevant nonsense, instead of answering relevant questions. Questions like what exactly is meant by "in its own footprint" and explaining why it is relevant. Or providing relevant evidence for claims that NIST forgot to model important parts building 7. Instead, the topic is how one person perceives another person. Well, I guess that is more important to some people.

It's been answered a thousand times. There's something seriously wrong with you dude. The outer walls fell inward as the whole structure went downward. That's what it's "own footprint" means. A pancake collapse due to structural failure would be slow, from the top down, incomplete, and quite messy and asymmetrical. What you saw was a classic controlled demolition, symmetrical, meaning all the supporting columns had to go at once. That has been said more times than I can count, but you either just can't seem to get that through your thick skull, or, you're messing with us because you have no choice. I think its the latter. You're a programmed zombie on your own track and no one or nothing is going to derail you from your appointed obfuscations.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

can't seem to get that through your thick skull... You're a programmed zombie

Yup. More class from a 9/11 Truther.

Are you guys sure that it's only OSers who insult and derail?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
It's been answered a thousand times. There's something seriously wrong with you dude. The outer walls fell inward as the whole structure went downward. That's what it's "own footprint" means.

Ok, but, in case of WTC7, not all the outer walls fell inward. Does that still count as "in its own footprint", and why? How else can a building collapse and do you have footage of that?

Also, the video that was linked:



I see all kind of stuff toppling over and falling outside the footprint. Does this still count as "in its own footprint" and why? And if that building counts, why doesn't the delft building count?

I know that there is something wrong with me so please explain this.

A pancake collapse due to structural failure would be slow, methodical, from the top down, incomplete, and quite messy and asymmetrical. What you saw was a classic controlled demolition, symmetrical, meaning all the supporting columns had to go at once. That has been said more times than I can count, but you either just can't seem to get that through your thick skull, or, you're messing with us because you have no choice. I think its the latter. You're a programmed zombie on your own track and no one or nothing is going to derail you from your appointed obfuscations.

Even though as a programmed zombie there is little chance that I will be able to think anything else than I was programmed to think (its not really my fault when you think about it), I would still like you to come with a source for your assertion. What exactly do you base your assertion that "structural failure would be slow, methodical, from the top down, incomplete, and quite messy and asymmetrical" on? Or is your premise missing the very basic requirement to be taken seriously?

It would also help if you exactly define what you mean by "slow", "methodical", "top down", "incomplete", "quite messy" and "asymmetrical" in this context. There is a reason why a such generic terms are not used in scientific publications without further explanation, as they are extremely subjective. That is also the problem with "in its own footprint" and the reason why I keep asking for an exact (call it "scientific") definition.

I find it amazing how there can be 5 pages of discussion on how one defines the simple statement 'collapsing into its footprint'. It seems that OS-advocates avoid the glaring inconsistencies like a pestilence in a pediatric hospital (such as the free-fall occurring at the same time core-columns were intact in the models) and seem content on focusing all their energies on defining statements such as 'collapsing into its footprint'. Even though it seems inconsequential to my mind, I will try to define it. A building that collapses into its own footprint is a building that collapses through itself symmetrically and from my own personal observations of the videos WTC7 does appear to do that. Of course it does tilt sideways slightly towards the end of its collapse, but that's not exactly unsual in controlled demolitions. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an unerringly symmetrical controlled demolition. So to my mind collapsing into its footprint simply implies collapsing symmetrically and vertically for the majority of its descent thereby 'disappearing' into its own footprint.

Why is it important? Because that's what controlled demolitions do. Hence our suspicions for thinking WTC7 may have been a controlled demolition. Isn't that obvious? Personally, I think WTC7's collapse remains totally inconsistent with a fire-induced collapse. To my layman's eye, it doesn't appear to share any of the telltale characteristics I would associate with one, such as gradual structural-deformation, asymmetrical and partial collapse, non-steel framing dismemberment, etc. In my view, NIST have only surmised events to fit the requirements of their hypothetical models and have neglected to check their surmises against directly observed reality. Such checks are either readily available already or else could become so with little effort on their part. But it appears they don't want to carry them out. What are these simple checks? The most simple, direct check is for 'explosive residue'. But NIST have admitted that they didn't look for explosive residue because apparently it would be a waste of time since they already knew (in advance of carrying out the said assessment) that WTC7 collapsed from fire. Really. Sometimes I wish I had NIST's scientific-talents and knew about things before even investigating them. Things would be much easier.

delft building count?

The delft building only collapses partially, does it not?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
I find it amazing how there can be 5 pages of discussion on how one defines the simple statement 'collapsing into its footprint'.

Its indeed amazing. The energy put into avoiding answering this simple question is staggering.

It seems that OS-advocates avoid the glaring inconsistencies like a pestilence in a pediatric hospital (such as the free-fall occurring at the same time core-columns were intact in the models)

Maybe you should construct a post where you explain these inconsistencies? Of course one of the first questions I will ask it to support your assertions with evidence.

and seem content on focusing all their energies on defining statements such as 'collapsing into its footprint'.

I am content with focusing energy on any other subject. But "in its own footprint" is what truthers come with.

Even though it seems inconsequential to my mind, I will try to define it. A building that collapses into its own footprint is a building that collapses through itself symmetrically and from my own personal observations of the videos WTC7 does appear to do that. Of course it does tilt sideways slightly towards the end of its collapse, but that's not exactly unsual in controlled demolitions. I think you would be hard-pressed to find an unerringly symmetrical controlled demolition. So to my mind collapsing into its footprint simply implies collapsing symmetrically and vertically for the majority of its descent thereby 'disappearing' into its own footprint.

At least you can give a straight answer, which is kind of refreshing.

It seems to me though, that according to the definition you gave, the Delft building also collapsed "in its own footprint". It was collapsing "through itself" (though I don't really see any other way a building can collapse), and it is not 100% symmetrical, but you can see a pretty wide piece of the building sink right into the middle.

Can you specifically point out why one collapse is and the other is not collapsing "in its own footprint"? I know it did not fully collapse, as the building existed of several segments. But lets just focus on the segment that did collapse and regard it as one building.

Why is it important? Because that's what controlled demolitions do. Hence our suspicions for thinking WTC7 may have been a controlled demolition. Isn't that obvious?

To me the argument is very obvious: it looks like CD, so it must be CD. At least you call it a suspicious, and you do not claim to be certain.

To me, the argument falls apart when we start to look at other tell tale signs of CD. Which is for example loud bangs and flashes. There the argument fails terribly. Usually truthers then say, that of course it does not look like a regular CD, because it was a special type of CD (using thermite or something similar). But that kind of contradicts the argument that started it all, which was, it looks like CD so it must be CD.

Personally, I think WTC7's collapse remains totally inconsistent with a fire-induced collapse. To my layman's eye, it doesn't appear to share any of the telltale characteristics I would associate with one, such as gradual structural-deformation, asymmetrical and partial collapse, non-steel framing dismemberment, etc. In my view, NIST have only surmised events to fit the requirements of their hypothetical models and have neglected to check their surmises against directly observed reality. Such checks are either readily available already or else could become so with little effort on their part. But it appears they don't want to carry them out. What are these simple checks? The most simple, direct check is for 'explosive residue'. But NIST have admitted that they didn't look for explosive residue because apparently it would be a waste of time since they already knew (in advance of carrying out the said assessment) that WTC7 collapsed from fire. Really. Sometimes I wish I had NIST's scientific-talents and knew about things before even investigating them. Things would be much easier.

Well, that is great, and it is your full right to believe whatever you want to believe. But to convince a skeptical person, you have to do better than give your laymen opinion. I don't really share your belief, as I will just fully admit that I have no clue how a building that has been on fire for 6 hours uncontrolled should collapse (or if it should collapse at all). I just don't know this and I don't really see how any laymen can know this to be honest. In fact, I don't even see how an expert can know this. Our minds are just not good enough to now these kind of things.

At best we can create computer models that mimic reality, and see if they somewhat match. NIST succeeded in that. Of course you can reject NIST's model, but there is an empty void you will get in return

reply to post by -PLB-

I will ask it to support your assertions with evidence.

Are you sure you've been reading the other posts here? I've just named some inconsistencies to the OS-proposition right under your nose (i.e. the fact that the collapse of WTC7 does not appear to share the same characteristics as a fire-induced collapse) and I have explained the inconsistencies that I see with NIST's models on the first page. There are many other posters here who have presented diverse cogent counterarguments and inconsistencies here as well.

the Delft building also collapsed "in its own footprint".

As far as I can make out, the Delft building does not collapse into its own footprint. A chunk of the building collapses off the front, although most of the building appears to remain intact, although one can't tell definitively how much since the smoke obscures our view. But it is a partial collapse, not a global collapse. I posted a side-by-side comparison of WTC7 and the Deflt building a few pages back and they don't look much alike to me. Also, it might be worth bearing in mind that the Deft building was not steel-framed and thus probably structurally more vulnerable than WTC7, which was.

the Delft building also collapsed "in its own footprint". It was collapsing "through itself" (though I don't really see any other way a building can collapse), and it is not 100% symmetrical, but you can see a pretty wide piece of the building sink right into the middle.

I think not "100% symmetrical" has got to be a candidate for the overstatement of the year.

But lets just focus on the segment that did collapse and regard it as one building.

You want to regard the segment of the Delft building that collapsed as the whole building? You think treating a segment of the building as the whole building is fair?

To me the argument is very obvious: it looks like CD, so it must be CD.

I am not saying that it 'must be' a controlled demolition. Those are your words, not mine. What I'm saying is that I think given the way it collapsed, I think it probably was a controlled demolition. The operative word in that sentence is 'probably'. To me, the collapse of the building shares striking similarities with a controlled demolition and not many similarities with a fire-induced collapse. This, accompanied by the fact that NIST have not provided any physical evidence (or theoretical evidence) to to support their contention, leaves me believing my own eyes and experience. If I see a building that looks like a controlled demolition I'm going to think it is a controlled demolition until someone provides convincing evidence that it was not. Thus far, I have seen no such evidence from NIST, and therefore as a skeptic, I cannot blindly accept the NIST-proposition as God-given fact.

To me, the argument falls apart when we start to look at other tell tale signs of CD. Which is for example loud bangs and flashes.

RDX is the loudest demo-explosive. Of course it's always a possibility that the building was destroyed unconventionally with thermate, which would explain the molten steel, oxygen-starved-hotspots, non-flashes, and why independent researchers have found such residue in the dust.

But that kind of contradicts the argument that started it all.

I don't see how that is a contradiction.

Of course you can reject NIST's model, but there is an empty void you will get in return.

Do NIST's models mimic reality? Have you done any independent checks on them? In fact, has anyone outside the self-referencing circle of NIST? Not to my knowledge. NIST appear to be keeping its models all to itself and we, the public, are expected to believe them on faith. If you cannot see how that is unscientific, then I dare say you are missing something fundamental from your critical-thought. I am not trying to be rude, just being honest. NIST's model does not even look like the collapse of WTC7 in the videos, take a look at the video I posted on the first page. If it does not look the same, why would anyone in their right mind think that it has successfully mimicked reality?

Well, that is great, and it is your full right to believe whatever you want to believe.

It is not really an 'opinion' but a statement-of-fact. The fact of the matter is that NIST have not tested for explosive residue, whereas independent researchers have and have found what they believe to be explosive residue. In science it is not enough to give other explanations a cursory look and then dismiss them so that one can feel confirmed in one's preconceived opinion. That is simply jumping to conclusions and then trying to justify it with numbers afterwards. If we are doing proper science we must endeavor to exhaust all of the possibilities thoroughly.

reply to post by Nathan-D

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Are you sure you've been reading the other posts here? I've just named some inconsistencies to the OS-proposition right under your nose (i.e. the fact that the collapse of WTC7 does not appear to share the same characteristics as a fire-induced collapse) and I have explained the inconsistencies that I see with NIST's models on the first page. There are many other posters here who have presented diverse cogent counterarguments and inconsistencies here as well.

Of course I have been reading the posts. The main thing they have in common is that they all lack evidence. Making the assertion (for example) that WTC7 does not appear to share characteristics of a fire induced collapse is not evidence on itself. It is just an assertion. You now have to show me your evidence or line of reasoning how you came to that conclusions. I will of course point out the fallacies. Saying "it fell into its footprint" is not evidence for that assertion either. Define what you exactly mean by that and explain why fire can't do that. Just asserting that it can't isn't an explanation.

As far as I can make out, the Delft building does not collapse into its own footprint. A chunk of the building collapses off the front, although most of the building appears to remain intact, although one can't tell definitively how much since the smoke obscures our view. But it is a partial collapse, not a global collapse. I posted a side-by-side comparison of WTC7 and the Deflt building a few pages back and they don't look much alike to me. Also, it might be worth bearing in mind that the Deft building was not steel-framed and thus probably structurally more vulnerable than WTC7, which was.

This is a problem for me. Your definition of "own footprint" is still open for interpretation, and Delft may have been falling in that definition. According to you it does not, but it seems you are open to other interpretations. Like this, you can never come to a solid conclusion.

I think not "100% symmetrical" has got to be a candidate for the overstatement of the year.

Thats the problem when you use very loose definitions. To me the penthouse and internal collapse makes calling WTC7 symmetrical another candidate for the overstatement of the year.

You want to regard the segment of the Delft building that collapsed as the whole building? You think treating a segment of the building as the whole building is fair?

What do you mean by fair? Do you mean the distinct differences are not fair? In that case, do you for example think that calling WTC7 a CD without any visible or audible charges going off fair?

I am not saying that it 'must be' a controlled demolition. Those are your words, not mine. What I'm saying is that I think given the way it collapsed, I think it probably was a controlled demolition. The operative word in that sentence is 'probably'. To me, the collapse of the building shares striking similarities with a controlled demolition and not many similarities with a fire-induced collapse. This, accompanied by the fact that NIST have not provided any physical evidence (or theoretical evidence) to to support their contention, leaves me believing my own eyes and experience. If I see a building that looks like a controlled demolition I'm going to think it is a controlled demolition until someone provides convincing evidence that it was not. Thus far, I have seen no such evidence from NIST, and therefore as a skeptic, I cannot blindly accept the NIST-proposition as God-given fact.

True, you seem to be a more open minded truther. Most truthers are sure beyond any doubt that WTC was CD, and call you crazy if you think otherwise. So apologies to put words in your mouth.

I again see you talking about a fire induced collapse. I am curious, what do you know about fire induced collapses? What is your data set? How did you go from "What do fire induced collapses look like" to "WTC7 was probably not a fire induced collapse"?

To me it seems that collapses are very unpredictable things. The way something collapses depends a lot on the way it is constructed an the damage. It seems to me that in this case inductive reasoning is flawed. Its comparing apples and oranges. You can't look at an animal that has 4 legs and tail and conclude its a dog, as it shares key similarities. There are so many different options, even options we never seen before.

RDX is the loudest demo-explosive. Of course it's always a possibility that the building was destroyed unconventionally with thermate, which would explain the molten steel, oxygen-starved-hotspots, non-flashes, and why independent researchers have found such residue in the dust.

I don't see how that is a contradiction.

1) why was WTC7 CD
2) because it looks like CD
1) but it does not look like CD because internal/penthouse collapse and lack of flashes and bangs
2) it was a special type of CD so of course it does not look like a traditional CD

Do NIST's models mimic reality? Have you done any independent checks on them? In fact, has anyone outside the self-referencing circle of NIST? Not to my knowledge. NIST appear to be keeping its models all to itself and we, the public, are expected to believe them on faith. If you cannot see how that is unscientific, then I dare say you are missing something fundamental from your critical-thought. I am not trying to be rude, just being honest. NIST's model does not even look like the collapse of WTC7 in the videos, take a look at the video I posted on the first page. If it does not look the same, why would anyone in their right mind think that it has successfully mimicked reality?

Science does not work like you suggest. It never deals in certainties, it deals in "best explanation available". Like I say, rejecting NIST leaves a void. It is not faith why I accept those models, it is authority. Sure, authority can be wrong, but I rather base my opinion on a large group of experts than laymen on the internet. As for visual differences, when the model is complex, you never get an exact match with reality. There is also the matter of how to visualize the model. To me it looks close enough. Untill someone comes with something better of course.

It is not really an 'opinion' but a statement-of-fact. The fact of the matter is that NIST have not tested for explosive residue, whereas independent researchers have and have found what they believe to be explosive residue. In science it is not enough to give other explanations a cursory look and then dismiss them so that one can feel confirmed in one's preconceived opinion. That is simply jumping to conclusions and then trying to justify it with numbers afterwards. If we are doing proper science we must endeavor to exhaust all of the possibilities thoroughly.

When you say "Personally, I think" it is most definitely opinion. If you say that for fact WTC7 is inconsistent with fire induced collapse then you have to do a lot more than asserting it.

The "independent" researchers you talk about have been shown to be wrong. They pretty much did what you describe. They wanted to find thermite so badly that it completely clouded their judgment.

Just so you know, the WTC dust is still available for research. Recently an "OSer" got it tested again for thermite. But if the truth movement wants, they can start doing their own investigation and do the things they think NIST missed out on.

reply to post by Nathan-D

To my layman's eye, it doesn't appear to share any of the telltale characteristics I would associate with one, such as gradual structural-deformation, asymmetrical and partial collapse, non-steel framing dismemberment, etc.

FDNY reported 3 story bulge on the Southwest corner of WTC 7

FDNY Collapse Unit had set up a transit to monitor the building - by mid afternoon could see that the
building was starting to "creep" or move out of plumb Telltale sign that building structure is unstable

It was these signs which lead the on scene Incident commander to make decision to setup a collapse zone
around building and evacuate the area