Wtc 7

[Corsair 115]

You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions.

Perhaps you can explain why NONE of the numerous videos of the collapses recorded the very loud and distinctive sound of demolition charges going off. The sounds were supposedly heard by people but not picked up by microphones?

 

[papasmurf]

You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?

I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.

How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.

 

[WildCat]

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.

Shouldn't you be making the case of how it was demolished? You, after all, are trying to challenge the accepted sequence of events.

eta: are you really using your email addy as your user name?

 

[SDC]

If he/ she is really from Stevens Institute of Tech, which last I heard was reputable... Are they now training their students to rely on videos only? The world is in worse shape than I had thought.

 

[~enigma~]

any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.

Can you please direct me to the psychological tests that show beyond any doubt that there are any rational people that think WTC 7 was a CD cause I never saw one. IOW, anecdotal evidence makes me think your claim is a bunch of baloney.

 

[phunk]

Pete, you're giving my alma mater a bad name, please stop. I hope you're not earning any sort of engineering degree.

 

[RedIbis]

Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?

Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.

 

[lapman]

You people are hilarious. Are you all like self-proclaimed intellectuals who haven't made it in the real world, so you have to come on here to make a name for yourself?

You're here because?

I don't understand how you can make 5 pages of posts, and not a single one has a single shred of intelligence that would change any rational persons mind on their doubts of the collapse of wtc7.

Except that only those with rational minds do buy into the "Truth Movements" lies and deceptions like the completely unsupported claim that WTC 7 was demolished purposely and silently for no reason what-so-ever.

How can you possibly watch the video of the collapse and think that a fire brought that down? Has NIST been able to fabricate a logical explanation yet?

Because we think rationally and look at the entire body of evidence and not just a 6 second clip that doesn't show the entire collapse.

Please enlighten me on how it is so clear to you people that wtc7 was not demolished.

Here's a challenge for you. Provide just one controlled demolition done before or since 9/11 that:

1. Has no sound of the explosive sequence recorded.
2. Has the roof structures collapse into the building seconds prior to the rest of the building
3. Carried out by the fire department
4. Had the explosives installed in a short period of time while the building was on fire.

 

[WildCat]

Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.

Will any of these people slapping their knees happen to be experts in structures, or just the uneducated kids in the truth movement along with the hucksters selling them the snake oil?

 

[SDC]

Red I., that isn't what it says in the Dec 06 summary. Could you provide a source for your comment?

ETA: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

 

[funk de fino]

Sometime in August the much anticipated NIST WTC 7 report will be released. Apparently, it will suggest that a critical single column failure occurred due to normal office bldg fires. It should be quite knee slapper.

That is not the current working hypothesis Red.

 

[papasmurf]

I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

 

[SDC]

Papasmurf, have you done anything except looked at video? Have you read anything? (Has Stevens sunk so low?)

ETA: check the NIST link I posted.

 

[~enigma~]

I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

You were asked this direct question...

Can you please direct me to the psychological tests that show beyond any doubt that there are any rational people that think WTC 7 was a CD cause I never saw one. IOW, anecdotal evidence makes me think your claim is a bunch of baloney.

Until you provide an answer there are NO rational people that question the collapse of WTC and think it was a CD (or a death ray ala wood's idiocy). Just because you go to a good school does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that you are rational.

 

[WildCat]

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...

Yes, your "theory" (whatever it is) will require some actual evidence. Got any?

Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

Because you're the one trying to overturn the dominant paradigm. And no, you can't use your lack of evidence as proof there is a coverup of said evidence.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

Because fires and damage fit all the evidence. There is no evidence at all of bombs, space beam weapons, thermite, thermate, or whatever it is you think happened.

 

[~enigma~]

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...

You really are getting two engineering degrees yet you have the sheer audacity to say your questioning the official story yet you have a theory? When was your theory scientifically tested you fraud?

 

[papasmurf]

You really are getting two engineering degrees yet you have the sheer audacity to say your questioning the official story yet you have a theory? When was your theory scientifically tested you fraud?

I don't have my own theory, [edited]. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your

Edited by prewitt81: 

Indecent remark removed.

of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.

Name calling is not civil. Civility is in your Membership Agreement. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't know why my email was set as my username, but i fixed it. I was pretty pissed about it.

I am getting two engineering degrees actually, and i have a very high GPA. Stevens is a good school, but a lot of people here are not that bright. A lot of people more concerned with getting the grades and a job rather than knowledge.

Anyways, i'm entitled to question the official story.

All you people are saying its ME who has to prove my theory...


Hmmm.... tell me this intelligent ones, why should i have to prove my theory against a massive cover-up that blocks the necessary evidence for me to do so, when your idea is open to all evidence and investigation presented.

I simply asked for a reason why i should believe that fire brought down wtc7, and you continue making this thread a joke as i have already pointed out.

Would it be fine if I asked you on what basis you have made your assertion that fire could not have brought down WTC 7 as well as examples you refer to to substantiate your claims? It'll help me determine how to respond to your criticisms of the 'official', as you and others have coined it, conclusion...

 

[~enigma~]

I don't have my own theory, [edited]. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.

First off. did you read the MA when you signed up? I highly doubt that you did and your incivility has been reported as such and since you are being a liar (since you claimed to have a theory) and you are an uncivil piece of trash....you just got yourself the award for fastest member to join and find itself on my ignore list. Congratulations on your accomplishment.

 

[SDC]

I don't have my own theory, ass. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.

Papasmurf, you seem to be new here. Please read the rules. Also, name-calling is a poor idea. This site is not populated by 20 year olds.