But not with any sensible answers.
That's not the point though. Why do you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
But not with any sensible answers.
That's not the point though. Why do you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Who said I want different results? I might just want to see how nonsensical some of the answers are, or merely hope that a Google cache will preserve my objections to fake 9/11 science for a solitary observer in the future.That's not the point though. Why do you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Too bad. If there's one area I don't think has been explored fully, it's the question I entered with: exactly what are the reasonable grounds for refusing to allow computer models to be verified by truly independent experts in a case like WTC 7? It is only what the scientific method demands of the investigation into an extraordinary collapse, which was conducted at great public expense.Then in the absence of anything new, I think this thread is done. Thank you all for participating. I'll close the thread in two hours.
Too bad. If there's one area I don't think has been explored fully, it's the question I entered with: exactly what are the reasonable grounds for refusing to allow computer models to be verified by truly independent experts in a case like WTC 7? It is only what the scientific method demands of the investigation into an extraordinary collapse, which was conducted at great public expense.
I think you know the commonly stated reason (public safety as terrorist would be able to figure out where best to put a bomb).
Perfect.Asked why his government did not test for explosives, Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan was quoted as saying, "Look man, I told you guys, a F*@!^$% plane hit the buildings."
There was an excellent reason to test for accelerants -- or do you approve of investigations pre-determining their conclusions?There is no reason to explore avenues that are unrelated to cause of an event.
Devastating logic. Now that's what I call debunking.To demolish WTC7, they had to have known the towers would collapse to provide cover, therefore they would have had to rig the towers to come down as well.
The towers collapsed from the top down, from the site of the plane crashes, so they must have known the exact impact sites where the planes would hit and where to put their explosives.
This is impossible, ergo WTC7 collapsed on its own.
To demolish WTC7, they had to have known the towers would collapse to provide cover, therefore they would have had to rig the towers to come down as well.
I don't know by what precise means they demolished the 3 buildings
but I do know that 2 planes & fire would not have yielded the same results.
The commonality between all three skycrapers which collapsed was that they were on fire and that the fires were burning uncontrolled.
You are finally getting the picture.
Perfect.
Oxy?
Okay cool. So we can ignore WTC7 and focus on eliminating the impossible in the rigging of WTC1 and 2, because if that is impossible, so is WTC7.
Sudoku logic.
There was an excellent reason to test for accelerants -- or do you approve of investigations pre-determining their conclusions?
Wow, you're really handing us our asses in the dying moments of this thread, aren't you Pete?Okay cool. So we can ignore WTC7 and focus on eliminating the impossible in the rigging of WTC1 and 2, because if that is impossible, so is WTC7.
Sudoku logic.
Yeah. You see the thing is there's no evidence because no evidence was looked for or examined. If you don't think accelerants should've been tested for, that's just fine by me. As I've said upthread, a reasonable person viewing the collapse footage for the first time would not perceive fire to be the obvious sole cause; if you do not feel yourself to be in this category I would not disagree.There is no predetermining when building debris collapses into another building, catching it on fire. That is what actual evidence showed occurred. Why are people trying to predetermine a controlled demolition when there is no evidence to support one?
There is no predetermining when building debris collapses into another building, catching it on fire. That is what actual evidence showed occurred. Why are people trying to predetermine a controlled demolition when there is no evidence to support one?
Yeah post-9/11-fire isn't like pre-9/11-fire.
Not scientifically investigating key evidence because the investigator doesn't expect to find something is called predetermining a conclusion Ron.
Ha. I somehow doubt the sincerity of that statement.Wow, you're really handing us our asses in the dying moments of this thread, aren't you Pete?
A fire started by a near fully fueled767 is not like a fire started by a space heater, pre or post 9/11.
A fire that burns out of control is not like a fire fought by the fire department, pre or post 9/11.
The three WTC skyscrapers were not designed like other steel buildings, with a concrete core, pre or post 9/11.
So why the false comparisons to WTC1, 2 and 7?
Yes, we know . . . Unprecedented construction, unprecedented insurance coverage, unprecedented flying, unprecedented luck to hit three for three, unprecedented collapse of towers never in the history of the world, unprecedented collapse by fire in less than a few hours . . . we have heard it all . . . The END!Originally Posted by Ron J
The commonality between all three skycrapers which collapsed was that they were on fire and that the fires were burning uncontrolled.
A fire started by a near fully fueled767 is not like a fire started by a space heater, pre or post 9/11. A fire that burns out of control is not like a fire fought by the fire department, pre or post 9/11. The three WTC skyscrapers were not designed like other steel buildings, with a concrete core, pre or post 9/11. So there is no direct comparison with other high rise steel building fires prior to 9/11. So why the false comparisons to WTC1, 2 and 7?
What imagined key evidence?
The key evidence was the fire.
Your logic is: if planes hit the towers then there's no reason to test for accelerants when investigating the global collapse of a different building?Ha. I somehow doubt the sincerity of that statement.
But is the logic really that bad? If *this*, then *that*, but *not that*.
If you disagree, you can tell me why.
That's right. Fire always makes buildings fall straight down. There's an animated gif upthread that proves it.The key evidence was the fire.
Most of the kerosene deflagrated on impact.
Do you know what an 'out of control' fire looks like?
No. The logic is, if explosives were used in WTC7, they had to have known planes would hit and collapse the towers to provide their 'excuse' for 7's collapse, therefore the towers had to have been rigged.Your logic is: if planes hit the towers then there's no reason to test for accelerants when investigating the global collapse of a different building?
Good work.
You got to admit Mick that the balance of the thread is not in favor of the official explanation.
If one starts from the presumption that governments could never be involved in
this kind of events it is hard to accept anything other than the government explanation.
That's the cliff most people can't get over.
No, it does not follow from this that accelerants should not have been tested for. I am not in the least interested in who "they" are, but whoever "they" are, "they" are not a logical reason for not conducting proper forensic tests.if explosives were used in WTC7, they had to have known planes would hit and collapse the towers to provide their 'excuse' for 7's collapse, therefore the towers had to have been rigged.
This has been a thread about WTC 7. You are speculating only.So if WTC7 is unsolvable at this time, solve WTC 1 and 2 and you will have eliminated or proved the conditions for 7.
I am proposing that a credible investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 would involve forensic tests for accelerants.Edit.. (unless of course you are proposing that WTC7 being rigged was a completely separate event to the attack on 1 and 2 and was not related, but they had just been waiting for a fortunate coincidence to blow the building.
But that's just getting silly