Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Ok, it didn't pancake like it looked like it did on TV, to me, a non engineer, but Nist did not say that it was demolished either. There is still zero proof that WTC was demolished.
|
NIST said there was no evidence of explosives. NIST later admitted they didn't look for evidence of explosives. Their reason was that there were no "booms" and breaking windows like there would be with explosive demolitions.
They ignored or dismissed eyewitness testimony and video/audio of "booms" as well as the presence of molten metals, denying any knowledge of it (probably because they can't measure them or misrepresent these on the drawing boards).
They didn't mention incendiaries to my recollection, which are different from explosives, and would have caused the "rivers" of "molten lava" "like in a foundry" that were present beneath the wreckage for weeks and months after the events.
NIST doesn't have proof or much evidence for that matter for most of their analyses, being conjectural and based on technical drawings over which they must have pored to find some places or points that could support the fire-based or thermal expansion theory of collapse for WTC 7, the conclusion they had reached before their final "findings".
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Why not?
|
First because it's completely beyond the realm of possibility, statistics, logic or coincidence.
Second, because although the vast majority of architects and engineers are mum on the topic (presumably to protect their careers and reputations if they go against the popular beliefs), there has been no outcry over established structural and steel-construction engineering, there has been no revision of any building/construction codes or the basic physics of steel high-rise infrastructure assembly.
If what NIST is standing behind were true it would raise alarm bells and cause a temporary halt on most current high rise projects until findings and established methods and techniques could be reviewed and if necessary revised.
None of that happened. It appears as though engineers and others in the scientific and professional communities are letting NIST's tip-toe around the bushes slide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
2 Planes did NOT knock down 3 buildings. 2 planes damaged 2 equal buildings enough for them to collapse. The 3rd building fell because of the severe damage it received from the other falling buildings. Very easy to believe.
|
That was the initial working theory, before any investigation. However "
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=861610
NIST still claims their unlikely (and since independently refuted) theory of disproportionate collapse was due to office fires that somehow didn't run out of fuel for a consistent 7 hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
This is irrelevant. Different buildings would be affected differently if struck by debris. Even worse, those buildings were struck by Different Debris, of different mass, at different speeds. This kind of argument is what clouds the issue. You are attempting to assert probability as fact and using it as basis to fortify your claims of different issues.
|
First, "different speeds" contradicts your belief in the gravity-driven collapse. Second, you're right that all this debris was somehow ejected, against the force of gravity, hundreds of yards up and out at surrounding buildings - but that would also contradict your belief.
The other WTC buildings suffered more global structural damage than WTC 7. Some also burned more completely and were essentially gutted by fire. Since NIST already says damage was not sufficient for the collapse, that it was office fires, your argument is void. Debris from the first two buidings "contributed" to the fires. That is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Lots of reasons make it unlikely. First, I *HAVE* to believe that people love their country. There is little to gain. It is impossible to keep a secret. etc etc. And don't forget I'm saying the WHole Government.
|
Arguing about your beliefs is pointless, beliefs cannot be defended or rationally presented.
If zealots and fundamentalists "believe" that sacrificing their own or blowing themselves up in public markets is for the greater good, then you can't argue with them.
I've already said I won't argue about whodunnit. Obviously if it was an "inside" Government job, it was done by a cabal, not as commonly known procedure.
"There is little to gain" is blindly ignoring what has occurred since the War on Terror began.
"Impossible to keep a secret" is also naive. The Manhattan Project had 15,000 people keeping the secret. Operation Paperclip managed to hide up to 1000 Nazis in the US for 40 years before it was discovered.
Look up "compartmentalization".
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
My only argument that I have always had is that the WTC simply didn't look at all to me like a controlled demolition. I have not seen anything that proves it to me, so I'll argue it.
|
WTC 7 didn't look like a classic demolition to you? Everyone else, even the Popular Mechanics "research" team, says it does (and then jumps through hoops to explain why it isn't).
Then there's the presence of particulates and evidence of incendiaries that have no business in building contruction, particularly "active" or unignited incendiaries themselves, found in the dust by independent sources.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/50...html#heading08
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=239769
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM
There's also the USGS analysis and the insurance company investigations but I don't have those. I have to provide these links for
you, but anyone should be seeing perfect-drop-down demolition style destruction with WTC 7, and obviously haven't noticed or believed what they saw when huge hunks of the towers were flying upward and out.
:D