Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Um. Lol. So now you're blatantly denying documented evidence just because it was presented via online sources.

I'm afraid you're judging the source of information based on the fact that you don't like the information, but that doesn't make it wrong. Do some reading. Refute these sources for me. I'm curious to see how you could.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...lyCollapse.pdf

What's funny is these people supported 9/11 conspiracy theories before any "tests" were conducted.. and none from officially certified debris.. You want to believe what anyone on the internet tells you is true; be my guest.. but no reputable scientist/group supports 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.

We are talking about skyscrapers here and not small paper factories. Look at the image of the inferno below at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel. About 100 feet shorter than WTC 7 and it is still standing perfectly the next day. Skyscrapers are designed far differently to low level buildings such as the paper factory in the UK.

Internet experts on fires and buildings. It's amazing. If this building had a fire and it didn't go down; that isn't evidence that the WTC didn't go down because of fire.. I don't think you understand how evidence works.

Source please?

Silverstein said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT' How does that refer to pulling firefighters out of a building?

I don't know maybe try watching the video/documentary in it's entirety instead of just little clips off the internet telling you what they mean.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-228805.html

Silverstein 2005 "the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building"

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/perso...M-34060-1.html

Where does pull it mean anything to do with explosives? It doesn't in any demolition company in existence.

For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following unscientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'(Now dropped by their publisher) entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Below is the Abstract from the paper that these scientists wrote. And just as a point of interest lets take a quick look at the life work of Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones to have an idea of the calibre of these scientists.

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. And finally, a lecturer of physics at Brigham Young university until 2006.

Anyone on the internet can convince you that it's science; doesn't mean it is.

"Collected by a Manhattan resident"? That is not following scientific procedure.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...l-physics.html

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Look... their publisher dropped them.. I wonder why... LOL

You have made a claim. You have claimed (albeit indirectly) that the official story is 100% accurate.

I made no such claim. I don't need to make claims. You believe everything you read on the internet. You lack evidence or proof. You are repeating the same tired talking points that every conspiracy nut on the internet has uttered a thousand times before. Their has been large buildings that have collapsed from fire alone. Planes flew into WTC.. . It's not impossible, crazy or nuts.. What is crazy; is thermite and our country destroying a center of commerce when we could enter war with far less.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm <--- Read this link. And be debunked

I wasn't going to entertain this illogical - and flat out unrealistic - assertion, but I felt highlighting how asinine it really is would do better than just ignoring it completely. So, let's go point for counterpoint on this one:
Pro-explosives point: Buildings are destroyed by demolition often, so as a matter of physics, it is possible.

Pro-explosives point: Explosives actually exist in the real world, to the best of our knowledge, which I don't think you can quite say for Cthulhu.

Your turn.

Anti-explosives point: Controlled demolitions take hours to set up; and no one noticed that this was done before planes were flown into the twin towers. There was no evidence from any reputable sources for explosives on the scene or in the rubble of WTC7. A well reasoned explanation based on science is available that requires zero explosives. Possible and plausible are two very different things.. anything is "possible" many things aren't plausible.

Pro-Cthulhu point: He must exist. For he has always existed and will always exist.

So, the takeaway from that statement is that we should believe everything we hear in the Associated Press. Yeah?

Nope but believing everything you hear isn't being open minded but just being gullible.

Their is no coherent rhyme or reason to the 9/11 conspiracy theories; thus it wouldn't stand up in any court room.. and that's good enough for me.

Plenty of real conspiracies occurring between our political system and moneyed interest; but go ahead and focus on complete bullshit.

This isn't a big boy discussion. You offer no evidence, no claims, this isn't a spiritual/occult discussion so the unproven has no place.. you are making direct claims about real tangible things and people.. but without evidence.

Internet detectives is the term I give to those who get all their information on conspiracies from the wide internet space and generally all have the same beliefs. I've heard your exact same speech from countless people on forums all over the internet..

The internet is a great tool for self-deception or a great tool for self-growth.. It takes a discerning mind to make progress.