If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[Axxman300]

This has been covered a number of times if you can be bothered to read through even the threads in this forum.
Unless you want to claim that the Fire Department are liars and in on the conspiracy.

Are we stuck in some kind of time warp?

He won't. This guy showed up in the JFK thread a while back, introducing himself as "new to the conspiracy", as if it was something to be proud of.

My guess is that he descent has led him to 9-11 stupidland.

 

[DGM]

I just made an account and sent them an email.

Good for you.

What exactly did you ask? I don't need a copy of the email, I'd just like to know your wording.

 

[MicahJava]

3 of us in New Mexico watching on television predicted collapse, as did at least 4 in Colorado, plus 2sophomore engineering students from NMSU, all of which I know personally.

WTC 7? The mainstream media reported the expectations of collapse very early. If you count the first false report of collapse at 11:07, it was before any photographic evidence of fire. So what?

 

[DGM]

WTC 7? The mainstream media reported the expectations of collapse very early. If you count the first false report of collapse at 11:07, it was before any photographic evidence of fire. So what?

Why WTC 7? It's a nothing building where no one profited. Certainly you don't think CD'n a building is a better way to destroy some documents then a paper shredder?

 

[MicahJava]

Good for you.

What exactly did you ask? I don't need a copy of the email, I'd just like to know your wording.

[IMGw=900]http://i.imgur.com/K8HOBFU.png[/IMGw]

Edited by jsfisher: 

IMG tags replaced with IMGW tags to be less disruptive.

I feel that I was just pointing out the obvious. I don't feel the need to respond to any more comments trying to debunk the NFPA 921 by citing their findings from their JREF careers. Excuse me from that topic, until I get an email response back from them.

 

[MicahJava]

Why WTC 7? It's a nothing building where no one profited. Certainly you don't think CD'n a building is a better way to destroy some documents then a paper shredder?

Well, destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

 

[DGM]

Well, destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

Spilling documents onto the street is better? "They" had control of a building that was on fire. Why CD?

 

[MicahJava]

He won't. This guy showed up in the JFK thread a while back, introducing himself as "new to the conspiracy", as if it was something to be proud of.

My guess is that he descent has led him to 9-11 stupidland.

Lol. 9/11 actually lead me to JFK. I stopped posting to that thread because that rabbit hole is so complicated. I tried arguing for a sniper behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, but now I actually think it's a distinct possibility that some kind of firecracker was used near there as a diversion. If there was a shooter from the upper right front, they could have been from the grassy knoll storm drain near the bridge.

 

[MicahJava]

Spilling documents into the street is better?

Maybe they just should have ordered the first responders to stop rescuing people so they could carry boxes of documents out like they did with the Oklahoma City Bombing.

 

[Myriad]

Well, destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims in the entire storied history of this subforum.

 

[DGM]

Maybe they just should have ordered the first responders to stop rescuing people so they could carry boxes of documents out like they did with the Oklahoma City Bombing.

I don't even want to know what you think "they" were hiding there. You didn't address my question. Why not let it burn (like it was) and let that destroy whatever you fantasize needed destroying.

Who's the "they"?

 

[MicahJava]

Are you citing yourself as a source, using a post you made on a website that you were eventually banned from?

If so, are you related to Fletcher Prouty?

Quit that BS. You know NIST denied freefall and said that it can't happen. In the end, they couldn't even fool a high school physics teacher.

 

[DGM]

Quit that BS. You know NIST denied freefall and said that it can't happen. In the end, they couldn't even fool a high school physics teacher.

Where did they "deny free-fall and said that it can't happen"?

Quote the statement.

Bet you can't.............

Stop making **** up!

 

[MicahJava]

He predicted a historical first while witnessing a historical first. Up to that point, nobody had ever seen a 47 story building get mangled by a 110 story building collapsing on it, with zero firefighting efforts to save it.

The "structural damage" was superficial. Source: NIST. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural failure, than the engineer would have to have a 100% perfect understanding of the current situation, which means disagreeing with the firefighters there who though the damage from North Tower rubble was pretty bad. The firefighters went through the trauma of the Twin Towers collapsing, and the loss of their brothers. An engineer "from the office of emergency management", however, would have a fresher and more professional perspective. This engineer predicting the hour of the collapse when the big fires had only been burning for about 30 minutes to an hour is very suspicious.

Do you think firefighters just stop fighting fires in buildings after everyone's out? No, they keep fighting to try to save the building. They know that steel will ultimately fail in a fire. This is common sense. Nobody can refute that. It's fact.

Yeah right, we all know that tall steel buildings on fire just end up as charred skeletons except for 9/11. What does not happen is a collapse just like a controlled demolition like something out of Loony tunes.

Thus the prediction. In addition, they were there. They had access to senses that the keyboard warrior doesn't. Sense of hearing. Sense of sight. There is no way you will ever have as much information as the people standing in front of the damn thing. INSIDE the damn thing.

There is no they. The one I'm talking about is the anonymous engineer guy, who for all we knew could have disappeared from city record as soon as WTC 7 collapsed. It would seem that his prediction is the genesis of the precise and certain foreknowledge. After that, the confirmation bias sets in and all of a sudden every firefighter there swears they knew that sucker was coming down. "Foreknowledge" is an appropriate term here, and it should be investigated.

I knew when I brought this subject up, I was going to get quotes from firefighters talking about the structural uncertainty they perceived well into the afternoon, rather than the 12:00 - 1:00 PM the engineer made his call. Of course, there is also evidence (in the form of a false media report that "fifty stories went down") of foreknowledge as early as 11:00 AM. I do not deny that the fires were intense on the floors they were on, I've read all of the firefighters quotes that everybody else here has.

 

[MicahJava]

Where did they "deny free-fall and said that it can't happen"?

Quote the statement.

Bet you can't.............

Stop making **** up!

I was too lazy to copy and paste the information I already knew and you should have known long ago, so I linked to a debate politics comment I made that gave three examples of NIST denying freefall and saying it can't happen.

 

[Redwood]

The NFPA 921 lists many signs of explosive destruction and arson that eerily describe the WTC. That's all you need. Like, it doesn't matter if you think it's waste of taxpayer's money, it should most certainly happen.

Except for the "Kaboom". The all-important sign. WHERE'S THE KABOOM?

 

[DGM]

I was too lazy to copy and paste the information I already knew and you should have known long ago, so I linked to a debate politics comment I made that gave three examples of NIST denying freefall and saying it can't happen.

So you have no actual statement from the NIST for this?

They never made this claim. Stop believing people that lie.

 

[Redwood]

I'd say check out the videos that show the closest view of the North Tower. It's been 10 years and you aren't antiquated with the photographic record of 9/11? You can see with the naked eye the antenna falling before the perimeter on most up-close videos, no matter the angle.

I'd suggest you try this one:


I also you suggest you watch the whole thing, being that it's the most complete record of the "102 minutes" and tell us "Where is the kaboom?"

 

[MicahJava]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims in the entire storied history of this subforum.

Arsonists often cover up their crimes. If the WTC was a demolition and one of the motives was to destroy files, then the arsonists did a very good job.

 

[MicahJava]

I don't even want to know what you think "they" were hiding there. You didn't address my question. Why not let it burn (like it was) and let that destroy whatever you fantasize needed destroying.

Who's the "they"?

That's really not what I care to discuss.