yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by billdadobbie
i remember pictures of a bomber flying into the empire state building in the 40s it was a b25 bomber and it was open a few days later ?

they dont make them like they used to

Have you any idea of the difference in size between a B25 bomber and a Boeing 767 or of the different speeds involved ?

Originally posted by billdadobbie
i remember pictures of a bomber flying into the empire state building in the 40s it was a b25 bomber and it was open a few days later ?

they dont make them like they used to

Yet another member that the construction of buildings is like a magic art to.

The Empire State building was a 3d steel grid ie NOT open plan floors it had a masonry skin NOT thin aluminium and thicker concrete floors.

Here is a couple of things that happened in that event.

One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Now when events like that happen today the conspiracy nuts go with wild theories it was harder for any part of that aircraft to make it through the Empire State building due to it's construction but it still happened.Now imagine a plane with many times more mass at a far greater speed across open plan office floors.

Seriously some on here should not comment until they do some research!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008 "the conspiracy nuts go with wild theories"

textbook OSer psych-baloney. i can't believe you still bring such drivel to the table.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by wmd_2008 "the conspiracy nuts go with wild theories"

textbook OSer psych-baloney. i can't believe you still bring such drivel to the table.

Selective quoting how typical the full quote!!!

Now when events like that happen today the conspiracy nuts go with wild theories it was harder for any part of that aircraft to make it through the Empire State building due to it's construction but it still happened.Now imagine a plane with many times more mass at a far greater speed across open plan office floors.

reply to post by Iwinder


I am sorry but nobody possesses divine knowledge. So we are left with science. NIST has made a detailed report about WTC7. So that is what experts say. Other experts around the world pretty much accept it as we do not see a widespread rejection of the report nor do we see many publications refuting it.

You can of course choose not to believe the conclusions in that report, but if you are going to ignore the science, then you aren't left with much.

reply to post by Another_Nut


I fail because you are blind to any argument, not because I do not have any argument that refute what you are saying. But come on, how can I refute an imaginary secret Tesla weapon anyhow, except by pointing out it’s an absurd idea and has no basis in reality? You try to refute it were interdimensional gnomes with torches using arguments that do not apply to your Tesla weapon. Such discussion is really going nowhere.

reply to post by -PLB-


In the end the NIST report is just a theory like any other, with zero evidence to back it up. I'm of the belief that building 7 was brought down with with explosives and there is no physical evidence to support that either, but I believe controlled demolition explains what we saw on 911 far better than fire-induced one column failure on the 13th floor. But NIST was told to produce a theory that didn't involve explosives....so that's what they did. It all depends on which theory you subscribe to. All are equally valid without evidence or experimentation.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by -PLB-

 

In the end the NIST report is just a theory like any other, with zero evidence to back it up.

With a statement like this you immediately reveal that you have not read the reports. Those reports are filled with evidence to support their theories.

I'm of the belief that building 7 was brought down with with explosives and there is no physical evidence to support that either, but I believe controlled demolition explains what we saw on 911 far better than fire-induced one column failure on the 13th floor. But NIST was told to produce a theory that didn't involve explosives....so that's what they did. It all depends on which theory you subscribe to. All are equally valid without evidence or experimentation.

Can you prove that "NIST was told to produce a theory that didn't involve explosives"? Or are you making that up?

I subscribe to the theory that is supported by evidence, experimentation and computer models. NIST theory is. CD theories are not.

reply to post by -PLB-

With a statement like this you immediately reveal that you have not read the reports. Those reports are filled with evidence to support their theories.

Show me the evidence. Conjecture and computer models are not evidence. I could theorize that Kuthulu knocked it down with a giant wiffle bat, and produce a computer simulation to prove it.

Can you prove that "NIST was told to produce a theory that didn't involve explosives"? Or are you making that up?

NIST completely ignored all witness testimony to explosions, video evidence of workers saying "the building is about to blow up" and flat-out refused to test for explosive residue.....you don't have to be a genius to figure out what their mandate was.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
Show me the evidence. Conjecture and computer models are not evidence. I could theorize that Kuthulu knocked it down with a giant wiffle bat, and produce a computer simulation to prove it.

What about all the video evidence and photographic evidence included in the reports?

If you even discard that, what is left? What do you accept as evidence? Please answer this question.

NIST completely ignored all witness testimony to explosions, video evidence of workers saying "the building is about to blow up" and flat-out refused to test for explosive residue.....you don't have to be a genius to figure out what their mandate was.

So no evidence. So you believe all the engineers at NIST are in on the conspiracy?

reply to post by -PLB-

What about all the video evidence and photographic evidence included in the reports? If you even discard that, what is left? What do you accept as evidence? Please answer this question.

The videos and photos show a tall structure collapsing at an exaggerated velocity and prove nothing in themselves other than the fact that it was demolished. Neither fire nor explosives are proven by the videos, but one could argue that both the NIST theory and the Kuthulu theory are without precedent and therefore equally valid. Controlled demolition, on the other hand, has been proven to produce the results seen on 911 many, many times over both before and since and therefore is the most likely cause.

So no evidence. So you believe all the engineers at NIST are in on the conspiracy?

I believe they were given guidelines to adhere to, and like good public servants, they complied.

Originally posted by Flatcoat

The videos and photos show a tall structure collapsing at an exaggerated velocity and prove nothing in themselves other than the fact that it was demolished. Neither fire nor explosives are proven by the videos, but one could argue that both the NIST theory and the Kuthulu theory are without precedent and therefore equally valid. Controlled demolition, on the other hand, has been proven to produce the results seen on 911 many, many times over both before and since and therefore is the most likely cause.

So you are saying that all you can make up from the video/photo evidence is that is was a collapse at exaggerated velocity, and therefore it is a fact it was demolished? Luckily for us NIST is a bit better at analyzing the data and did a much MUCH thorough job. They got tons of information from it, and used it so build their theory. So what they did is look at the evidence, and create a theory around it.

Your statement that it looked like a demolition is completely misguided as result of your extremely limited analysis. Where are the videos showing detonator charges going off? We see and hear those in other controlled demolition videos. They are not there, meaning the collapse was nothing like a controlled demolition. Where in the many many videos of controlled demolition do we see an internal collapse (penthouse) seconds before outer collapse? Nowhere, meaning the collapse was nothing like a controlled demolition.

You have a preconceived conclusion and try to mold the evidence into that, along the way ignoring crucial evidence. You basically do yourself what you accuse NIST of. It is called confirmation bias. All while NIST has done a very extensive analysis of all the video and photo evidence. An analysis you ignore.

I believe they were given guidelines to adhere to, and like good public servants, they complied.

You believe that experts on the subject with years of training and education were fooled, but you were not. Ok.

reply to post by -PLB-

So you are saying that all you can make up from the video/photo evidence is that is was a collapse at exaggerated velocity, and therefore it is a fact it was demolished?

You should probably take a little more care reading my comment. The videos prove that the building was demolished, yes. Whether by fire or explosives it is an undeniable fact that the building was demolished.

Where in the many many videos of controlled demolition do we see an internal collapse (penthouse) seconds before outer collapse? Nowhere, meaning the collapse was nothing like a controlled demolition.

I believe that standard procedure in a controlled demolition is to first remove stairwells and elevator shafts, is it not?

You believe that experts on the subject with years of training and education were fooled, but you were not. Ok.

Again your reading comprehension seems a little off kilter. I said they were given guidelines not that they were fooled ...Ok?

Originally posted by Flatcoat
You should probably take a little more care reading my comment. The videos prove that the building was demolished, yes. Whether by fire or explosives it is an undeniable fact that the building was demolished.

Or you should take a bit more care in the words you use. Demolished strongly implies human intervention; the act of demolishing. Why not just call it collapsed?

I believe that standard procedure in a controlled demolition is to first remove stairwells and elevator shafts, is it not?

And what does that have to do with an internal collapse? As in, complete floor collapse? You are trying to twist the facts.

No comment on the complete lack of explosives going of on the video record?

Again your reading comprehension seems a little off kilter. I said they were given guidelines not that they were fooled ...Ok?

So you think they do believe it was controlled demolition, but can't prove it because they were not allowed to investigate it further?

It seems to me you haven't really thought this through.

reply to post by -PLB-

So you think they do believe it was controlled demolition, but can't prove it because they were not allowed to investigate it further?

If my boss tells me to do something a certain way, even though I personally think it is the most ridiculous possible method of accomplishing the task, I will do it without question. I'm quite fond of my paycheck at the end of the month.

reply to post by Flatcoat


Even if it makes you implicit to mass murder. I, and I think most people, have other moral standards. In no way I believe that all the people at NIST believe it was CD but are afraid to talk about it at risk of losing their paycheck. That just sounds completely ridiculous, no matter what you would have done in that situation.

reply to post by -PLB-


Tell me then, why do you think NIST refused to test for explosives? After a terrorist attack of this magnitude, apparently by islamic extremists, three huge buildings totally and utterly obliterated, a target that had been bombed before, who in their right mind wouldn't test for explosives? Or are you in agreement with NIST's twisted schrodinger-esque approach of "Why look for something that isn't there"? ....to which the logical answer, of course, is "How do you know it isn't there if you didn't look?" .......

reply to post by Flatcoat


The correct approach is to look at the evidence and create a model that fits the evidence. They also didn't test for radiation.

By the way, other people have searched for explosive resudue and failed. So we know NIST made the right call there.

reply to post by -PLB-


Who tested for explosive residue, if I may ask?

reply to post by Flatcoat


That would be Jones and Co.

Did you know there is still WTC material available to do testing? What exactly is stopping you from proving there is explosives residue? Are you waiting for the USA government, whom you don't trust anyhow, to take action?