• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
No. They are a professional body commenting on a report that was released without the drawings being available and were taking NIST at their word and basing their question on the basis that the plates were not present. That is exactly how professional organisations work. They were not in posession of the drawings and were pointing out that perhaps the inclusion of these plates may have had an effect on NISTs conclusions. Despite the likes of Jay trying to dance on the head of a pin when not commenting on this, it would seem perfectly reasonable to expect NIST to go and check if the plates were indeed present.
Click to expand...
So you believe these organisations are not capable of or allowed original thought?
 
GlennB said:
Amen. gerrycan was avoiding - like the plague - admitting that he was a CD believer until called on it. Rather than describe his putative WTC7 CD scenario he managed to divert the debate into yet another discussion of expansion rates, pf and pg plates and the like.

gerrycan - why, how and when do you believe WTC7 was rigged for CD?
Click to expand...

I am open to any explanation as to how wtc7 collapsed. As it stands there is not a reasonable explanation for how fire could initiate it and it remains therefore possible that it was brought down with explosives.
I wonder if your mind remains as open to either possibility.
 
gerrycan said:
I am open to any explanation as to how wtc7 collapsed. As it stands there is not a reasonable explanation for how fire could initiate it and it remains therefore possible that it was brought down with explosives.
I wonder if your mind remains as open to either possibility.
Click to expand...
"Reasonable" to who?

If it's you, you need to define your demographic.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
So you believe these organisations are not capable of or allowed original thought?
Click to expand...

Considering that they were able to ascertain that there should have been plates on the girder without having the drawings to check for them I would say that their thought process is to be admired. If the CTBUH could see this without the drawings then why did NIST miss it with the help of the drawings? And how could they further miss them given the question being asked publicly?
 
gerrycan said:
I am open to any explanation as to how wtc7 collapsed. As it stands there is not a reasonable explanation for how fire could initiate it and it remains therefore possible that it was brought down with explosives.
I wonder if your mind remains as open to either possibility.
Click to expand...

It was not explosives, unless you know of a silent blast-free explosive. And no thermite was used on 911. That only leaves fire.
Gage lied, it was not thermite, explosives and CD.

it is not an open mind issue, it is a fact based event; only fire was present. Playing the open mind card when you believe in fantasy. Where did you get the silent explosives from in the CD fantasy?
 
gerrycan said:
Considering that they were able to ascertain that there should have been plates on the girder without having the drawings to check for them I would say that their thought process is to be admired. If the CTBUH could see this without the drawings then why did NIST miss it with the help of the drawings? And how could they further miss them given the question being asked publicly?
Click to expand...
......and this concerns the findings how?

You might want to admit the CTBUH does not support your view. Are you willing to do this?
 
DGM said:
......and this concerns the findings how?

You might want to admit the CTBUH does not support your view. Are you willing to do this?
Click to expand...

DGM said:
So you brought it up only because it seemed to support your view?

Proving the NIST wrong is pointless if you have no alternative.

Do you have an alternative?
Click to expand...

It is important to base any alternative explanation for the collapse on a solid foundation. Part of that foundation is being able to prove that the current official story is invalid.
For example, if a group of people were to produce an ansys model and subject it to the same conditions that NIST claim to have done and got a different result.
 
gerrycan said:
I am open to any explanation as to how wtc7 collapsed.

As it stands there is not a reasonable explanation for how fire could initiate it and it remains therefore possible that it was brought down with explosives.

I wonder if your mind remains as open to either possibility.
Click to expand...

Only people who can't face the truth, or wish to suppress it, have cause to doggedly block any consideration that the official NIST investigation into the cause of 7WTC's collapse was a failure.

As I have repeatedly said, proof that the demolition of 7WTC was not an inside job can only be good news to those that see it otherwise.

There is no sane motivation to desire a belief in bad News.

Good News is always easy to embrace.

It is the people who believe 7WTC's demolition occurred the way they have been told by the NIST who cannot stand the pain of being wrong.

Bad News denied, is a horrible pill to swallow.
 
gerrycan said:
It is important to base any alternative explanation for the collapse on a solid foundation. Part of that foundation is being able to prove that the current official story is invalid.
For example, if a group of people were to produce an ansys model and subject it to the same conditions that NIST claim to have done and got a different result.
Click to expand...
You need a valid alternative to make this claim. Do you have one? I'm listening.
 
gerrycan said:
Says who?
Click to expand...

Engineering, evidence. There is only evidence for fire - you can't claim you have an open mind so adopting fantasy CD is okay. You have no evidence for CD. And bad news for you, we have evidence for fire.

All you have is questions, no evidence. I don't need NIST to understand fire did it.

Open mind? Is that like an open marriage, where the mind (wife) leaves after finding reality (aka, better man).

If having an open mind has people falling for the delusion of CD, open minds are not good. I imagine the open mind is actually associated with lack of knowledge, not knowing what evidence is, and a touch of gullibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom