9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

[JAStewart]

I notice that this is like a year old, I just read it in the top bbc news.

Please delete.

Original message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm

 

[RedIbis]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail.

 

[funk de fino]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

This is all you are reduced to? Hit and run troll posts like HI and Bill

How utterly sad.

 

[twinstead]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

It must be terribly frustrating for you to be completely unsatisfied with things most others, even experts, don't have a problem with. Keep up the good work; maybe something will come of it one day.

 

[RedIbis]

It must be terribly frustrating for you to be completely unsatisfied with things most others, even experts, don't have a problem with. Keep up the good work; maybe something will come of it one day.

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

 

[Justin39640]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

but you guys dont even consider the 110 story building next door that collapsed as an issue
you guys dont even look at this as all part of the same thing

youre not a skeptic
youre an ostrich with your head planted firmly... um... in the ground
lol

 

[Grizzly Bear]

but you guys dont even consider the 110 story building next door that collapsed as an issue
you guys dont even look at this as all part of the same thing

youre not a skeptic
youre an ostrich with your head planted firmly... um... in the ground
lol

Well lets' just say he has conflicting priorites. I mean... we still don't have that chunk of foam that doomed Columbia, or the ice burg that supposedly sunk Titanic.

 

[twinstead]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

Were that the case, I would be. It's just that the collapse theory, and in fact the majority of what you call the "official story" is supported by a HUGE amount of physical evidence. You must somehow think that the government told the world's experts what happened that day and everybody just believed it, no questions asked. You must think that the world's experts are keeping their mouths shut about how the "government's story" is impossible because they're afraid, cowering in their classrooms and research labs trembling under the power of the jack-booted Red White and Blue Evil Empire.

I repeat. The collapse theory is the best narrative of what happened that day, supported by the most evidence. You don't agree? Tough. As always, feel free to submit a narrative that is supported by the available evidence better.

 

[Justin39640]

Were that the case, I would be. It's just that the collapse theory, and in fact the majority of what you call the "official story" is supported by a HUGE amount of physical evidence. You must somehow think that the government told the world's experts what happened that day and everybody just believed it, no questions asked. You must think that the world's experts are keeping their mouths shut about how the "government's story" is impossible because they're afraid, cowering in their classrooms and research labs trembling under the power of the jack-booted Red White and Blue Evil Empire.

I repeat. The collapse theory is the best narrative of what happened that day, supported by the most evidence. You don't agree? Tough. As always, feel free to submit a narrative that is supported by the available evidence better.

actually didnt the scrapyard guys save the 7 steel (put it to the side) and it was inspected by the first team of investigators?

 

[Thunder]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

any evidence that that the reconstructed collapse model was based on anything but sound science, architectural drawings, and logic?

or are truthers just gonna nitpick?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well lets' just say he has conflicting priorites. I mean... we still don't have that chunk of foam that doomed Columbia, or the ice burg that supposedly sunk Titanic.

Imagine that... a big chunk of frozen water can slice into steel ~1 inch thick at 20 kts, who woulda thunk it?

 

[Justin39640]

any evidence that that the reconstructed collapse model was based on anything but sound science, architectural drawings, and logic?

or are truthers just gonna nitpick?

does a bear (rule10) in the woods?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I notice that this is like a year old, I just read it in the top bbc news.

Please delete.

WTC7 is the holiest shrine in the truthseeker cult. An occasional reminder of the BBCs excellent documentary is a good thing.

 

[johnny karate]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

And how's that expectation panning out? You know, among all the engineers and scientists you've talked to about the validity of computer modeling.

 

[beachnut]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

There is evidence you deny it is evidence. The lack of explosives is hard for you and your fellow conspiracy theorists to take; get use to it it is called failure. 7 years of failed ideas (plus 10 months and 15 days)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Someone remind RedIbis that the theory about the Columbia disaster isn't supported by physical evidence, either, but he has no problem accepting that one.

ETA: Whoops. Grizzly Bear got it.

 

[BigAl]

Someone remind RedIbis that the theory about the Columbia disaster isn't supported by physical evidence, either, but he has no problem accepting that one.

ETA: Whoops. Grizzly Bear got it.

Not a lot of eyewitnesses, either.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Not a lot of eyewitnesses, either.

Also, people died as a result of the Columbia breakup. No one died as a result of the WTC7 collapse.

 

[RedIbis]

Well lets' just say he has conflicting priorites. I mean... we still don't have that chunk of foam that doomed Columbia, or the ice burg that supposedly sunk Titanic.

I try not to indulge false analogies, but as it appears your only defense left, I encourage you to read this interesting article about the Columbia shuttle disaster. Consider how the two events (WTC 7 collapse and subsequent investigation and the Columbia) are similar and how they are different and why you should abandon this as a tactic defending NIST's evidence bereft report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine67

 

[T.A.M.]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

You know I have been meaning to ask you. Given your constant refrain of "no evidence went into the investigation of WTC7 collapse", what exactly do you think they (NIST) should do, given they had no steel to start with?

I mean instead of griping, whining, complaining, hollering from the rooftops, about the lack of steel for their investigation, do you actually have a suggestion as what they should have done instead?

Thanks

TAM