9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip

[bill smith]

I already told you that I am agnostic myself. I know several "truth oriented people" in Germany who are not only agnostic, but opposing CD. You may also find some of those kind of people at truthaction.org or similar sites.

I have a hard time believing that you are not aware of that.

That's not really enough for me. But maybe that's just the way I am. As an agnostic can I assume that you yourself have not written off NIST's explanation for the collapse of WTC7 ?. That fire brought down a steel framed hi-rise for the first time ever ?

 

[Marokkaan]

Dylan Avery is probably a good place to start.

Why do you lie?

 

[Childlike Empress]

That's not really enough for me. But maybe that's just the way I am. As an agnostic can I assume that you yourself have not written off NIST's explanation for the collapse of WTC7 ?. That fire brought down a steel framed hi-rise for the first time ever ?

NISTs WTC7 report is pseudo-science. I regard CD as a "known unknown", as Rummy would say. While there are more fruitful venues where there are "known knowns" and not a lot of talk, among it a lot of nonsense. That's the way I am: not a believer.

 

[ozeco41]

That's not really enough for me. But maybe that's just the way I am. As an agnostic can I assume that you yourself have not written off NIST's explanation for the collapse of WTC7 ?. That fire brought down a steel framed hi-rise for the first time ever ?

NISTs WTC7 report is pseudo-science. I regard CD as a "known unknown", as Rummy would say. While there are more fruitful venues where there are "known knowns" and not a lot of talk, among it a lot of nonsense. That's the way I am: not a believer.

From the time I first entered Internet debate of WTC collapses - late 2007 - I decided to not rely on NIST findings or reasoning.

The reason for that choice was that on the forum I joined the main topic of discussion was "Demolition or Not?" BUT the debate kept getting dragged off topic into discussing "NIST was wrong". Both "sides" making the same errors of derailing or following derails. (yup. nothing has changed. )

The bottom line is that I can take or leave NIST reasoning. (I am both a structural and a military engineer) The NIST WTC Twin Towers initiation explanations seem plausible. I am not fussed when someone gets their underwear in knots over "core led" v "perimeter led". Bottom line is the impact and fire zone collapsed and let the top block fall >>> global progression inevitable.

Ditto WTC7. to me the NIST report is "plausible" - and I don't engage in unsupported hyperbole such as "pseudo science". I wouldn't care if there were several "plausible" explanations. If we accept that the big question is "demolition assistance or not" the proof of "no demolition" lies on far stronger foundations than NIST modelling.

Some folk probably have a legitimate interest in the details of collapse mechanism independent of a need to support demolition claims. Good luck to those folks. I don't share their interest but whatever rocks their boat....

 

[bill smith]

NISTs WTC7 report is pseudo-science. I regard CD as a "known unknown", as Rummy would say. While there are more fruitful venues where there are "known knowns" and not a lot of talk, among it a lot of nonsense. That's the way I am: not a believer.

As you say Nist's report is pseudo ccience and that's enough confirmation for most people to believe in the CD of WTC7 .Perfectly fairly in the light of how obvious the demolition is.

What are the known knowns that trump WTC7 ? The construction of the Al_Quaeda myth ? The lack of a 757 at Shanksville ? Let me know and I may change my focus.

 

[Oz1976]

ROFL pseudo-science. Pray tell what part of anything NIST has published is "pseudo - science" please be specific with sources and support for your claim.

 

[ozeco41]

...please be specific with sources and support for your claim.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Azrael 5]

Im new ot 911 discussions on here so someone help me out.Has any turther explained how WTC7-or any of them-were wired for demolition so covertly,not to mention how WTC7 burned for 7 hours without bothering these charges.

 

[Oz1976]

Don't hold your breath.

Yeah...I know full well they'll never answer that post, but it's always nice to throw it out there and see them run and hide. Kinda proves the point ay?

Im new ot 911 discussions on here so someone help me out.Has any turther explained how WTC7-or any of them-were wired for demolition so covertly,not to mention how WTC7 burned for 7 hours without bothering these charges.

A group of super secret little people ninja's. I'm only half joking, someone actually said something similar once.

 

[Robrob]

That fire brought down a steel framed hi-rise for the first time ever ?

Well, except for the other times of course.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
http://youtu.be/_MRSr1MnFuk
"The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing."
"In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse."
"Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen."
"Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out."
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-049.txt
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-061.pdf
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

The construction of the Al_Quaeda myth ?

So to clarify, you think al Quaeda is a nonexistent "myth" like Santa Claus?

The lack of a 757 at Shanksville ?

Sigh...

 

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah...I know full well they'll never answer that post, but it's always nice to throw it out there and see them run and hide. Kinda proves the point ay?

It's always nice to throw it out there because this way you don't have to deal with it. Are you claiming you have read and understood this report?

 

[Skeletor]

Just finished watching the Road Trip...Glad that Charlie's mind was changed, but as for the rest (Rodney, Charlotte and the chubby girl) there is no cure for stupidity. Charlotte was just gratingly annoying, completely disregarding the evidence presented towards her. Rodney...oh, Rodney went to the USA without permission from Mom! And the way he went off to pout after the thermite experiment, completely classic. It wasn't evident from the episode, but from that link that CE posted, looks like the evidence didn't convince her at all.

Some people just aren't gonna be convinced. That Andy chap had his work cut out for him from the get-go.

 

[ozeco41]

Im new ot 911 discussions on here so someone help me out.Has any turther explained how WTC7-or any of them-were wired for demolition so covertly,not to mention how WTC7 burned for 7 hours without bothering these charges.

No.

There has never been a truther complete explanation of any of the claims for demolition.

At best they post partial technical claims - such as:
1) It looks like CD (when it doesn't)
2) There was thermite residue on site (when there wasn't and even if there had been a 100 ton stockpile on site it wasn't used)
3) Squibs
4) Witnesses heard explosions which in truther speak means explosives - (it doesn't) and
5) etc ad nauseum

In broad overview no truther has ever comprehensively addressed the two main areas essential to any claim of demolition:
A) Explain technically how such a demolition could have been achieved - remembering it has to fit in with the "natural" processes and disappear within those processes; OR
B) Explain how such demolition activity could remain secret before, during and after the event.