• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
86,262
Reaction score
17,150
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Right... You are tired of being exposed here as *** as they get, and so you want to move to the next topic.

Makes sense.

Bman, WHERE do you get your claims from?

I don't believe anyone on the reality side of things has EVER stated "the entire structure of 8 floors to disintegrate". WHERE do you get this stuff?
 

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You need to stop taking your queues from Bob.

Yeah don't take any cues from me, Mark says the NIST models are reality, not reality itself. You need to take your cues from him, he knows that models are reality, especially when you can use whatever data you need to make those models sing and dance exactly the way you want them to sing and dance. But you don't even need those NIST models, even though they're reality, Mark is the real authority on reality, just ask him and he'll tell you.

Now, do you have a case to present for MHI at 7 World Trade Center or not? The accusation through innuendo thing is getting rather old and I'm not interested in chasing you down more rabbit holes.

Here's a cue for you, this thread is NOT about MIH at WTC7, it's about "NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11", talk about going down rabbit holes.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,218
Reaction score
11,674
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, does this mean you hadn't considered just how tied you are to the NIST report? Or was it just you lying?

Now that you admit your position does in fact hinge on the investigation, are you going to accept NISTS investigation as fact and stick with the implications of that, show us the results of YOUR investigation so we can at least be talking about the same subject, or are you going to concede that you don't have a solid position, but rather some specious opinions that anything happened so long as it fits the official narrative?

you did not answer my questions. I answered your WHAT IF questiion. I gave an honest answer. It is interesting you question if I am lying. Most people who take that tact have nothing to offer.

So BM, why are you dodging. If you want to discuss futher. please answer the questions
Let refresh your memory.

"IF any new investigation states WTC7 collapsed due to a fire induced collapse, Will you accept it?
and "if" you do, then why the heartburn over the orginal findings of a fire induced collapse?

What if a report came out and stated you were involved in the destruction of WTC7, would you accept it?


So why should I answer anymore of your questions when you will not answer mine?

It seems your set on a forgone conclusion of any new investigation.
I would bet that if another investigation is done on WTC7 by the govt or non govt group and stated it was a fire induced collapse, you would still not believe it and claim cover up.
 
Last edited:

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am still wondering where he got the "the entire structure of 8 floors to disintegrate" silliness from. Not that he would EVER give up his "sources".

Ditto.

Actually, I am not wondering. I know exactly where he got it from (don't know where the reference to "concrete" came from though) and since the appallingly bad logic of that claim has been explained here to death (even in this thread IIRC) I hardly feel like going over it again. It is of course also covered in the All Things 7 World Trade Center thread.

BMAN clearly doesn't understand the engineering aspects - or even how 7 WTC was actually constructed - even at my level and that is probably the minimum required to understand the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. With that AND since he has chosen to adopt Bob's losing tactics I hardly think there is any hope for any more constructive dialogue on this topic. BMAN wants to keep the discussion derailed in irrelevant details so he doesn't have to make specific claims that he would have to both comprehend and back up. I'm not interested.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you did not answer my questions. I answered your WHAT IF questiion. I gave an honest answer. It is interesting you question if I am lying. Most people who take that tact have nothing to offer.

So BM, why are you dodging. If you want to discuss futher. please answer the questions
Let refresh your memory.

"IF any new investigation states WTC7 collapsed due to a fire induced collapse, Will you accept it?
and "if" you do, then why the heartburn over the orginal findings of a fire induced collapse?

What if a report came out and stated you were involved in the destruction of WTC7, would you accept it?


So why should I answer anymore of your questions when you will not answer mine?

It seems your set on a forgone conclusion of any new investigation.
I would bet that if another investigation is done on WTC7 by the govt or non govt group and stated it was a fire induced collapse, you would still not believe it and claim cover up.

If there was a new investigation, and it addressed all the evidence to explain why it could be nothing else other than fire, and showed the case through models or a report that was able to explain issues like the freefall period of wtc7 collapse, and so on...

Then, yes, I would concede that I was wrong about all that... But here's the funny part, it would still not disprove that it was allowed to happen, because then they could "not let the crisis go to waste" (I know Rahm was not around, but he holds the same sentiment).
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ditto.

Actually, I am not wondering. I know exactly where he got it from (don't know where the reference to "concrete" came from though) and since the appallingly bad logic of that claim has been explained here to death (even in this thread IIRC) I hardly feel like going over it again. It is of course also covered in the All Things 7 World Trade Center thread.

BMAN clearly doesn't understand the engineering aspects - or even how 7 WTC was actually constructed - even at my level and that is probably the minimum required to understand the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. With that AND since he has chosen to adopt Bob's losing tactics I hardly think there is any hope for any more constructive dialogue on this topic. BMAN wants to keep the discussion derailed in irrelevant details so he doesn't have to make specific claims that he would have to both comprehend and back up. I'm not interested.

Gee.. Let's pretend that the 8 floors of free fall didn't happen.

And you wonder how come you get called dishonest so often.
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Gee.. Let's pretend that the 8 floors of free fall didn't happen.

And you wonder how come you get called dishonest so often.

I don't have to pretend. It didn't.

There is a detailed explanation of this myth in the "All Things 7 World Trade Center" thread.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't have to pretend. It didn't.

There is a detailed explanation of this myth in the "All Things 7 World Trade Center" thread.

NIST admitted that there was free fall measured... So, was it NIST lying when they made the admission, or are you lying now?
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
86,262
Reaction score
17,150
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gee.. Let's pretend that the 8 floors of free fall didn't happen.

And you wonder how come you get called dishonest so often.

WHERE did you get the "the entire structure of 8 floors to disintegrate" from. THAT was a question.

The free-fall was on an OUTER wall. It was NOT "the entire structure of 8 floors".

Maybe you don't understand that a curtain wall is not ""the entire structure of 8 floors"

And how does YOUR ignorance of structures translate to dishonesty in others.

Oh, speaking of ignorance... Where did you get the "concrete" nonsense from?
 
Last edited:

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NIST admitted that there was free fall measured... So, was it NIST lying when they made the admission, or are you lying now?

He's saying exactly what I told you, that he's the only authority on what happened because in the next post he's giving you the link to his own gibberish opinion, which even marginalizes NIST, regardless that every single idea he got from NIST and only from NIST. He's intelligent enough to make his gibberish sound technical (if you're not adept enough to bother taking it apart and shredding it to pieces - I'm not saying you're not) but he's not intelligent enough to have come up with the column 79 theory all by himself. The column 79 theory is an invention that NIST may have plagiarized from someone else (or in concert with).
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
86,262
Reaction score
17,150
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
He's saying exactly what I told you, that he's the only authority on what happened because in the next post he's giving you the link to his own gibberish opinion, which even marginalizes NIST, regardless that every single idea he got from NIST and only from NIST. He's intelligent enough to make his gibberish sound technical (if you're not adept enough to bother taking it apart and shredding it to pieces - I'm not saying you're not) but he's not intelligent enough to have come up with the column 79 theory all by himself. The column 79 theory is an invention that NIST may have plagiarized from someone else (or in concert with).

So, when are you taking your "proof" public?
 

chutney

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wow, I just read that for the first time. That's...incredible. A huge variety of mutually exclusive theories with no evidence. SEC records? Torture reports destroyed? Bin Laden thrown in an ocean long ago?

That's impressive.

Aside from the numerous ad hominems in prior posts, I wanted to give you sources for these

Press Conference Donald Rumsfield announcing $2.3 trillion missing. The next day the DoD office was destroyed by the plane.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

CIA destroying its torture tapes
Justice Dept. Says CIA Destroyed 92 Torture Tapes | The Public Record

SEC destroying its record of put option trading specifically on the airliners, resulting in huge pay offs for whomever involved
SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options Washington's Blog

Leaked info from intelligence analysis firm saying Bin Laden was not thrown in the sea, but flown to US and cremated
Osama bin Laden WAS NOT buried at sea, but flown to US for cremation, leaked emails reveal | Mail Online

FBI says in 2006 it has no evidence Bin Laden was connected to 911
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”


Ok, lets forgoe the CT's, and look at the OCT from a different perspective;

Demolition companies 'claim' that their goal is to get a building to destroy as much of itself as possible, from top to bottm, reducing it to rubble to make the clean up easier. They dont want huge sections of the buildings remaining. Im sure you all can agree to that notion? OCT supporters, you agree with this right?

Ok, demo companies then 'claim' that in order for a building to symmetrically and gravitationally destroy itself from top to bottom, they need to have precise removal of key structural components. They do this a number of ways, the effort involved requires extensive knowledge of engineering, architecture and physics. The demo companies 'claim' that if the precise removal of structural components arent synchronized, the demolition will fail leaving huge chunks of building remaining, in some cases, the building falls a few floors and still stands. Im sure everyone here can agree to that idea? Precise removal of key components in order to allow a full demolition (according to demo companies), can all you OCT supporters agree with that notion?

Ok now heres the kicker, if the OCT is true, then all these demo companies are full of ****. 3 of the strongest steel skyscrapers were reduced to rubble, from fire, perhaps a few floors blown up. Essentially, from here on out, we can destroy steel skyscrapers with fire and a few floors destroyed, as per the OCT. Just light a few floors on fire, bomb a floor or two and viola! building go boom!! No longer do we need to pay demo companies, we can just use kerosene fires! lol

I love the quotes from the news anchors from that day, just objective, unbiased statements about what they see

"The entire building has just collapsed, as if a demolition team set off, when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings, it
folded down on itself, and it is not there any more" - Don Dahler

"If you wish to bring ah .. anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows .. that if you're going to
do this you have to get at the .. at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down" - Peter Jennings

"Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” - CBS News anchor Dan Rather

Then there's Danny Jowenk, one of the worlds top demo experts. He was shown wtc7 without knowing what it was and when it happened, so he had an objective unbiased stance. Without a doubt it was a controlled demolition, according to Jowenko. Then he was told it happened on 911, he was shocked, but nonetheless maintained his disposition; he couldnt ignore what he sees. If only OCT supporters could do the same.

I see constant 'where's the evidence', there is plenty, but take note that 'lack of evidence' doesnt always mean it isnt there. Radio waves for example, if I were to tell someone in the 1700's about radio waves, they could demand evidence. If I couldnt provide it, they assume I must be wrong. The lack of 'evidence', doesnt negate the existence of those waves. The same will go for 911, eventually it will be accepted that the OCT is a lie, ppl who still cling to it are in denial, the implications of it are too much for many people. My dad for example, believes the OCT, when I showed him a video of wtc7, his first reaction was 'oh thats fake'. He knew it was a controlled demolition, just couldnt accept the govt lied about it. It seems most deniers are in this boat.
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In other words, NIST concocted a model, eliminating any inconvenient data, concocting whatever data was needed and changing other data, in order to try to create a model that might cause their model to progressively collapse, based on their preconceived idea that removing column 79 would come as close as possible to mimic a fire induced collapse and called it a "probable collapse scenario", which had nothing to do with NIST's first objective. Then NIST created an intricately detailed report, using all that carefully selected data, including their counterfeit structural diagrams, and published a report that they KNEW most people would determine is the exact scenario that they would conclude happened. They also KNEW most people would never read the report, much less go over it with a fine tooth comb. But they KNEW as long as government sanctioned that report as the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE on the collapse of WTC7, they would go along with it because it comes from authority. And they KNEW most people fall for the belief that authority = truth, rather than truth = authority. And just to make sure to cover all their bases, NIST withheld as much data as they could, even under FOIA requests, as long as they cited that releasing such data would ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY. And just to make sure all this was kept in the dark as much as possible, government got their puppet media to make sure never to publish anything about WTC7 (minus a couple of leaks) so that as many people as possible would remain completely ignorant about the collapse of WTC7. But as we can see recently with C-SPAN, even this tactic is not working.

The problem with all that deliberate OBFUSCATION is that it didn't work for experts and other educated intellectuals who know better, but these are in the minority and since they're not government, they're not accepted as authority by most people. And as long as the MSM and government labels these people as "conspiracy theorists", "kooks" and the like or marginalizes them as a few disgruntled malcontents, most people just accept that and will not do the research. But the problem with that is that government and the MSM have an awful track record and many people no longer accept what they're fed by the propagandists and turn to those they see as much more credible. And that's why 9/11 will NEVER GO AWAY and the number of people who want real answers is GROWING DAILY. Some of the evidence for that is shown by the EVER INCREASING number of signatories of experts at AE911, many of whom are first learning about WTC7 as well as the 100,000 plus petitioners (so far) in NYC who demand a REAL INVESTIGATION into the collapse of WTC7.

In other words then, it seems NIST started with a conclusion, and then worked backwards and fixed the details so that their pre-ordained conclusion would be found?
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In other words then, it seems NIST started with a conclusion, and then worked backwards and fixed the details so that their pre-ordained conclusion would be found?

Only if you believe Bob's fantasy, for which he has not a shred of credible evidence nor motive nor can he explain why anything would require covering up in the first place.
 

OldWorldOrder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
5,820
Reaction score
1,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Aside from the numerous ad hominems in prior posts, I wanted to give you sources for these

Of course they described it as such, they'd never seen buildings that large collapse from anything other than that.
 

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In other words then, it seems NIST started with a conclusion, and then worked backwards and fixed the details so that their pre-ordained conclusion would be found?

That is pretty much the summary of NIST's plan IMO. It took them 7 years to work on it though. I guess it's nearly impossible to come up with a computer simulation model that might work. In other words, even in computerland buildings don't collapse globally from fire. In fact, they could only come close so they had to fudge quite a bit. I'm guessing that they weren't even on the right path until someone gave them the idea which they plagiarized and ran with. I forgot what debunker site posted the original idea so I'm not sure who the alchemist is that they got the idea from.
 

chutney

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Of course they described it as such, they'd never seen buildings that large collapse from anything other than that.

This doesnt negate that 3 of the worlds strongest steel skyscrapers were reduced to rubble at near free fall speed, symmetrically, and destroying themselves top to bottom, from what? A few fires and a damaged floor or two. (accept wtc7 had no damage which contributed to the collapse, as stated by NIST)

As I said before, if the OCT is true, this means any steel skyscraper can be reduced to rubble, at near free fall speed, near symmetrical, destroying themselves top to bottom from a few fires and a damaged floor or two. Looks like demo companies are going to be out of business! lol! Doesnt the idea of total demolition from fires seem ridiculous, yet you still accept the OCT! :doh

Have you ever seen a failed demolition? Buildings have fallen several floors and remained standing, others just fell over. I could *maybe* see the towers collapsing from the plane impacts, but common sense would dictate it would be asymmetrical, experience 'jolts' (the towers experienced uniform acceleration as if the undamaged floors below offer no resistance), and large sections (at least 10% or more) would remain. Not a complete destruction leaving a pile no more than 3 stories tall.

Aside from NIST and their fraudulent research, look up pilotsfor911truth, the OCT version of the hijackings is physically impossible right from the start.
 
Last edited:

OldWorldOrder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
5,820
Reaction score
1,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This doesnt negate that 3 of the worlds strongest steel skyscrapers were reduced to rubble at near free fall speed, symmetrically, and destroying themselves top to bottom, from what? A few fires and a damaged floor or two. (accept wtc7 had no damage which contributed to the collapse, as stated by NIST)

Maybe, but it sure does negate all those quotes you offered in that post.

As I said before, if the OCT is true, this means any steel skyscraper can be reduced to rubble, at near free fall speed, near symmetrical, destroying themselves top to bottom from a few fires and a damaged floor or two. Looks like demo companies are going to be out of business! lol! Doesnt the idea of total demolition from fires seem ridiculous, yet you still accept the OCT! :doh

I dunno, as I'm not an engineer and don't pretend to be. I just accept what the masses of them say and accept. Are you one?

Aside from NIST and their fraudulent research, look up pilotsfor911truth, the OCT version of the hijackings is physically impossible right from the start.

If I wanted to stay away from fraudulent research, wouldn't pilotsfor911truth be at least as bad?
 

chutney

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am curious if you actually had a point? [/url]

Hmm...I guess my point was illustrating that if the OCT is true, then demo companies are wrong and we dont need them to bring buildings down. Light a few floors on fire, bomb a floor or two and viola! building reduces to rubble near free fall symmetrically top to bottom. Im not sure how you missed that, but Im sure you can agree the idea of bringing skyscrapers down with fires and a few damaged floors is ridiculous.....yet you still accept the OCT?

"WHERE did you get the "the entire structure of 8 floors to disintegrate" from. THAT was a question.
The free-fall was on an OUTER wall. It was NOT "the entire structure of 8 floors".
Maybe you don't understand that a curtain wall is not ""the entire structure of 8 floors""

Where does NIST state this? From my searches I came up with NIST statements such as...

"NIST, NCSTAR 1-9 volume 2, page 588 wrote:
When all the exterior columns had buckled, as shown in Figure 12–62, the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7."

I like this statement a lot....
"NCSTAR 1A, page 44
The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model."

As well as this one;
NCSTAR 1A, page xxxv
"However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned and, thus, there are uncertainties in this accounting"

And here NIST explains that the curtain wall is firmly attached to the perimeter columns, thus would fall with the interior columns
22 NCSTAR 1-9 volume 1, page 100

NIST Technical Briefing, November 19, 2008, page 8
"The gravity loads were supported roughly equally by the 58 exterior columns and the 24 interior columns."
 
Last edited:

chutney

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
11
Reaction score
11
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I dunno, as I'm not an engineer and don't pretend to be. I just accept what the masses of them say and accept. Are you one?

Appeal to authority, or an appeal to majority. And no, I am not an 'expert' but I can see with my own eyes a building reduced to rubble near free fall symmetrically destroying itself top to bottom in the exact manner of nearly every controlled demolition.
I am willing to bet the majority of OCT supporting engineers do so out of reputation sake. 911 is a touchy subject and the potential to be fired or ridiculed for making statements is too high. The others who genuinely support the OCT are likely in the 'oh govt couldnt have lied etc' frame of mind; their opinions and conclusions are biased from their world view; they have emotions which can override true objective research.

"If I wanted to stay away from fraudulent research, wouldn't pilotsfor911truth be at least as bad?"

Well you have to hear what they say before labeling it as fraudulent. Their conclusions are simply based on well accepted aerodynamic principles, as well as, the OCT version in no way matching what Air Traffic records show, among many other false statements and publicly available data which conflicts entirely with the OCT.
 
Last edited:

OldWorldOrder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
5,820
Reaction score
1,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Appeal to authority, or an appeal to majority.

Sure. What should I appeal to? My own untrained eyes?

And no, I am not an 'expert' but I can see with my own eyes

...Oh.

a building reduced to rubble near free fall symmetrically destroying itself top to bottom in the exact manner of nearly every controlled demolition.

So? Have you ever seen a building that big collapse from any other means? Didn't we just talk about this?

I am willing to bet the majority of OCT supporting engineers do so out of reputation sake.

Have you asked?

911 is a touchy subject and the potential to be fired or ridiculed for making statements is too high. The others who genuinely support the OCT are likely in the 'oh govt couldnt have lied etc' frame of mind; their opinions and conclusions are biased from their world view; they have emotions which can override true objective research.

Well thanks for that random supposition. Are conspiracy theorists supposed to be unemotional?

Well you have to hear what they say before labeling it as fraudulent.

I've heard them make fraudulent statements.

Their conclusions are simply based on well accepted aerodynamic principles, as well as, the OCT version in no way matching what Air Traffic records show, among many other false statements and publicly available data which conflicts entirely with the OCT.
No, OCT version does match. Who told you otherwise? pilotsfor911truth?
 

Mark F

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
3,835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hmm...I guess my point was illustrating that if the OCT is true, then demo companies are wrong and we dont need them to bring buildings down. Light a few floors on fire, bomb a floor or two and viola! building reduces to rubble near free fall symmetrically top to bottom. Im not sure how you missed that, but Im sure you can agree the idea of bringing skyscrapers down with fires and a few damaged floors is ridiculous.....yet you still accept the OCT?

Now that's just a wee bit silly don't you think? Fire is a highly destructive and unpredictable thing. That buildings are vulnerable to fire should not be news to you or anyone.

BTW - the speed at which something falls tells you nothing about why it fell, nor does "near free-fall" or any alleged "symmetry" have any bearing on anything.

But none of this really answers my question, which is do you have a point? You tossed out a veritable chef's salad of common CT meme's without any attempt at a cohesive narrative. I just think if one is going to make a claim they should be specific and direct about it and skip all the innuendo and allusion.

But I would suggest a better place to do that might be here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/188220-place-all-things-7-world-trade-center.html since you seem to want to discuss things that have nothing to do with the OP of this thread.
 
Top Bottom