NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

deep44 said:
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse. Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Please stop trying to change the subject, Deep44. RedIbis has a question to answer.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?
Click to expand...


I genuinely have no desire to re-ignite our feud. Can we agree that you have demonstrated, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have no intention of ever coming to grips with this question, one that has been put to you by several posters? When you claim to have answered it, you are simply not telling the truth.
 
deep44 said:
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Stop lying. No serious researchers agree with Gage's gaggle of frauds.
 
No, I like Deep44's post. I would like him to point out the evidence those 300+ architects, engineers, an scientists have to prove WTC 7 was a CD. Surely 300 such professionals would have an argument more than 'it looked like a CD and it fell entirely into its own foot print" The whole footprint claim I can't imagine being made by experts since it's completely untrue. And i can't imagine experts calling an 18 seconds collapse to be near free fall speed.
 
deep44 said:
Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
Click to expand...


The supposed 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with "us" (you meant, with every government, law enforcement agency, university faculty, and professional society in the world, right?) have not published any peer-reviewed papers setting out the rationale for their disagreement.

Hence, there's nothing to refute.

So, back to worrying about Silverstein.

What was he lying about?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Lastchild WTC 7 was built over an existing electrical substation, its load distribution was uniquely wide. And it is known that the more load a steel structural member has to support, the less heat it takes to cause it to fail.

When load bearing columns fail, they give way. When they give way their load collapses.
 
deep44 said:
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Actually out of these 300+ individuals that you so worship not a single one has come up with a theory on how it was done. Why don't you go talk to them and ask them why this is. The best your hero's have done so far is "because it looks like one" (CD that is). Demolitions leave tons of evidence. Are you ready to accuse everyone involved in the cleanup of being "in on it". That's what it would take, or do you think the "perps" were hoping they'd get lucky and no one would notice?
 
deep44 said:
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Those 300 have nothing with which to dispute that there were impact damages done when large pieces of WTC 1 fell on WTC 7 or that large office fires were occuring in WTC 7.

Furthermore all they do have to support the contention of CD is "it looks like it if you squint and ignore the fire and impact damage"
 
Please, gentlemen. Silverstein is for the other thread.

For this thread, the question is how can RedIbis say this:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.
Click to expand...

without implicating everyone working on the project as being complicit.
 
Well, Gravy told me the latest news about the scheduled date for the final release. Being a Skeptic and keeping recent release-dates in mind, I'm doubtful about the date - but I also take it as a aimed date and hope that they're able to meet their estimate. :)
 
deep44 said:
It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint?
Click to expand...

It didn't, so your argument is flawed.
 
2 days left, RedIbis. How's the explanation coming along? I'm quivering with anticipation!
 
Alrighty Red. Time's up.

What's the word?

Do you retract this statement:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.
Click to expand...

or do you stand by it?

If you stand by it, are you implicating everyone working on the project as being complicit? If yes, what evidence do you have that this is the reason for the delay?

If you stand by it but do not implicate everyone working on the project as being complicit, could you please explain what on God's green earth you are talking about, as well as how your position makes any logical sense?

Can you explain what your position even IS? Do you even have a position?
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Alrighty Red. Time's up.

What's the word?

Do you retract this statement:



or do you stand by it?

If you stand by it, are you implicating everyone working on the project as being complicit? If yes, what evidence do you have that this is the reason for the delay?

If you stand by it but do not implicate everyone working on the project as being complicit, could you please explain what on God's green earth you are talking about, as well as how your position makes any logical sense?

Can you explain what your position even IS? Do you even have a position?
Click to expand...

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.
 
RedIbis said:
You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.
Click to expand...

What are you implying with that statement then? That it is taking time to cover something up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom