'What about building 7'?

[Dave Rogers]

Most people do not know that wtc7 collapsed that day. Even the ones that do, don't understand the significance.

So many truthers seem to think NIST doesn't exist.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

A forensic scientist wouldn't assume the gun shot wound was the cause of death. That is kind of the point of an autopsy.

If he saw someone do it or watched many videos showing it he would assume the gunshot killed him though eh?

Are you claiming that NIST looked for nothing else because they assumed a fire caused collapse from the outset? We know that isn't true because they "investigated" blast events.

Only because stupid morons who believe in fantasy CT's wouldn't shut their jabbering pie holes.

 

[DGM]

NIST included it in their final report after a high school teacher pointed it out to them

Liar!

 

[cooperman]

Liar!

Where was the lie? Chandler is a high school teacher who contacted NIST with his video analysis showing the freefall. NIST then added it to the report.

 

[T.A.M.]

NIST included it in their final report after a high school teacher pointed it out to them

Proof that Chandler pointed it out to them?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Where was the lie? Chandler is a high school teacher who contacted NIST with his video analysis showing the freefall. NIST then added it to the report.

You have proof of this? Or are we just to take yours and Chandlers word for it?

TAM

 

[DGM]

Where was the lie? Chandler is a high school teacher who contacted NIST with his video analysis showing the freefall. NIST then added it to the report.

That's not what you claimed Why did you change your wording?

 

[T.A.M.]

Most people do not know that wtc7 collapsed that day. Even the ones that do, don't understand the significance.

I was watching some TV footage on youtube the other day and one reporter said, just after building 7 collapsed, that "a small building on the site has also now collapsed". I don't know in which universe a 47 storey building is considered small.

Yes, and in 100 years, most people won't know what "The Twin Towers" were.

It is 9 years later, and WTC7 was an insignificant (relative to the twin towers) building with no strategic or symbolic value. It collapsed 7 hours later, involved no casualties.

I am amazed as many people remember it as do.

Of course, to truthers it is the holy grail, the smoking gun...

TAM

 

[cooperman]

That's not what you claimed Why did you change your wording?

How is the wording different? I am trying to simplify the language for the hard of reading.

You called me a liar. Would you like to point out the lie?

 

[T.A.M.]

The lie is that the reason NIST brought up the Freefall was DUE TO Chandler. You have provided no proof of this.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Yes it is.

Dave

No it isn't, and it's only as good as its inputs. But I'm sure you won't admit it because it can fabricate support for a predetermined conclusion.

 

[DGM]

2.25 seconds of freefall huh? Where the hell did they come up with that?

NIST included it in their final report after a high school teacher pointed it out to them

Where was the lie? Chandler is a high school teacher who contacted NIST with his video analysis showing the freefall. NIST then added it to the report.

How is the wording different? I am trying to simplify the language for the hard of reading.

You called me a liar. Would you like to point out the lie?

Let's see if any one else can see how your change of wording effected the whole context of your statement.

 

[T.A.M.]

No it isn't, and it's only as good as its inputs. But I'm sure you won't admit it because it can fabricate support for a predetermined conclusion.

Well if your standards for evidence dismiss computer models and simulations, then forget the 2.25 seconds of freefall. That was based purely on an amateurs assessment of videos.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, and in 100 years, most people won't know what "The Twin Towers" were.

It is 9 years later, and WTC7 was an insignificant (relative to the twin towers) building with no strategic or symbolic value. It collapsed 7 hours later, involved no casualties.

I am amazed as many people remember it as do.

Of course, to truthers it is the holy grail, the smoking gun...

TAM

Now you're just babbling incoherently. Do people still learn about Ford's Theater? Appomattox?

And how do you get off calling WTC 7 insignificant? The location for Giuliani's OEM and the regional offices for the CIA, IRS, and FBI has no strategic value?

 

[cooperman]

Let's see if any one else can see how your change of wording effected the whole context of your statement.

You called my first wording a lie. You have failed to point it out.

I don't see haw my second post is any different to the first.

Where is the lie?

 

[Garb]

Now you're just babbling incoherently. Do people still learn about Ford's Theater? Appomattox?

And how do you get off calling WTC 7 insignificant? The location for Giuliani's OEM and the regional offices for the CIA, IRS, and FBI has no strategic value?

Wouldn't that mean that it would be in their best interests for WTC7 to NOT collapse?

Doesn't seem to be very smart to blow up your own offices.

 

[RedIbis]

Well if your standards for evidence dismiss computer models and simulations, then forget the 2.25 seconds of freefall. That was based purely on an amateurs assessment of videos.

TAM

And yet it took an amateur's video to get this impeccable team of scientists to revise their account.

 

[Garb]

And yet it took an amateur's video to get this impeccable team of scientists to revise their account.

Did their original findings contradict the idea of freefall in any portion of the building?

 

[Gorgonian]

Here we go again.

There were no toothpicks being used as structural members in the wtc.

I did not claim there were toothpicks being used as structural members in the wtc. How rapid would the failure of toothpicks be in the scenario I described?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

2.25 seconds still doesn't prove that WTC7 was CDed. No way in hell can you Truthers ever prove it!