I notice that the OP hasn’t posted since Friday the 13th. I hope he didn’t fall into a gravity well. That would suck.
If the main topic of dispute is WTC7 have you bothered to read the report from NIST on why it collapsed? I linked to it in post 203 or so but for convenience, here’s my OP from that previous thread several years ago:
[QUOTE=Valgard]
After a three year study, here’s links to NIST’s report:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html
Executive summary: Fires weakened structural members which collapsed, resulting in catastrophe.
[/QUOTE]
If you disagree with what is in that report, please tell us SPECIFICALLY what you disagree with and WHY; something factual, please. “Man, it’s just the government lying and covering it all up” is a random opinion, it’s not a reason backed up by any kind of evidence.
And I’ll repeat my question regarding what kind of work or educational experience you have to back up your factual assertions. Anyone is free to voice their opinions, but if you’re going to argue about, say, how structural systems behave it would help to have some kind of specific knowledge about the topic. Your intuition and what you think looks right/wrong may in fact be completely out of whack with what actually happens.
“Bright orange”? “Glow”? Do you have special filters on your monitor? Whatever was there certainly appeard to be liquid, but if you had ever seen molten iron being poured, you would recognize that whatever liquid was falling was not molten metal. (Frankly, to me it looked like water, particularly the way it spread and dissipated within a few dozen yards as it streamed out of the building, but I will not hazard a guess as to what it really was. I only note that it was not glowing like hot metal.)
To see what actual molten iron looks like, watch the following video.
I selected a video from a hand operated foundry to avoid claims that watching tons of metal in a Pittsburgh foundry would have a different appearance.
Note that the metal is actually white hot and really glows. It also tends to spray “sparks,” (actually, glowing embers), whenever it touches anything.
Whatever was coming off the tower in that video bore no resemblance to molten metal.
The key point on that, though, is something splt p&j continues to not grasp: an asinine and unfounded opinion is not free from being treated with the contempt it deserves.
Updated link to the NIST report since previous links don’t work:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610 (the download is a big PDF).
I highly recommend reading section ES.3 “Principal Findings Of The Investigation”, pages xxxvi and xxvii. It’s not overly technical.
Many of the common “just asking” questions are specifically addressed in this report.
So,** split p&j,** are you now going to actually READ the explanations, or are you going to keep on insisting that “the experts cannot explain what happened to WT7” ??
There is no shame in looking at the factual data and then admitting you were wrong.
There is shame in merely ignoring the facts and continuing to believe in a fantasy.
There is greater shame in simply running away with fingers in ears, and then repeating the same false assertions again in a different place.
Sorry, one more thing, here’s a direct link to NIST’s FAQ on the WTC7 report. This gives a ready source of answers to all kinds of “just asking” questions.
split p&j and anyone who wants to know what NIST had to say, check it out. Very good reading.
As far as the “teams of experts”, the NIST report is prefaced with the enormous list of names of the folks who worked on it. I recognize some of the individuals and firms named, they are certainly qualified to participate.
Suppose WTC1 and WTC2 hadn’t damaged WTC7 during their collapses. Now WTC7 is standing there full of explosives. Do people go and covertly remove them all?
Suppose the planes hadn’t even hit WTC1 and WTC2. Now the towers are standing there full of explosives. Do people go and covertly remove them all?
Was the building that Flight 93 was supposed to hit also full of explosives?
An excellent read and accessible to the non expert. The methodology is clear and makes so much more sense than explosives, too bad the Truthers will ignore it. To me the saddest thing about Truthers in their fixation on Conspiracy have somehow gotten the noise level so high, we no longer think about what caused 19 men to fly planes into buildings. Those guys had balls of steel and believed they were doing the right thing, how do we fix that? Is there anything we can do about that?
I can only assume we will try to drown out the noise instead of looking the monster in the eye.
CAPT
The only ‘problem’ with using the NIST report is that Truthers automatically disregard it because it’s all part of the conspiracy. But then, they do that about everything so no harm in putting it in. It really is pretty easy to read and accessible to the non-technical, and most debunking websites use it heavily in any case.
-XT
Except for the parts that appear to agree with them, in which case the NIST is A-OK. Mental gymnastics at its finest.
Nothing wrong with that in itself, anymore than making an argument that starts with “Alex Jones, by his own admission, states that…”
Rob
Not sure if it’s a good trait or not but I can be very stubborn about sticking to the facts. Someone wants to claim it’s all a conspiracy, fine. I’ll keep asking what actual facts they have questions about and why. I’ll show them the evidence and ask them what questions they have about that. I’ll ask them (as I always do) what their understanding of the underlying concepts is - honestly it’s not to say “Gotcha!” but more to try and educate people; I can talk about buckling of unsupported long columns or the P-delta effect with people who understand basic structural engineering, but for someone who hasn’t ever heard of that stuff it’s a lot easier to break out some simple examples and show them. As has come up many times in these threads before, people tend to extrapolate things they see in their regular environment (a tree falls over) up to things that happened in a very unusual environment (WTC1 and 2 falling down) and think that they should behave similarly, when in fact they are very very different situations.
I think you missed the point: saying the entire NIST can’t be trusted because they’re “in on it” then turning around and attempting to use the NIST to bolster one’s argument is a logical inconsistency.
The real question is - what was the government hiding in that field that they so desperately needed to make disappear? Aliens? Nazi gold? Alien Nazis? Alien Nazi gold? Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate? The lost Nixon tapes? Zombie Jimmy Hoffa?
It’s OBVIOUS that everything else on 9/11 was a diversion to stop us from asking these questions. We’re through the looking glass here, people.
split p&j: I consider anyone who thinks the US government is going to commit mass murder of its own citizenry as someone with a less than tenuous grasp on reality. But, what they hey, let’s go ahead and pretend like your assertion has some bearing in facts. Let’s go ahead and say the president has ordered the murder of more than three thousand American citizens in one place. Okay, who’s going to carry out that order?
Let me guess. You’re going to say that the President and Congress aren’t really the actual government of the United States. You’re going to posit some nefarious cabal. Before I laugh myself silly, perhaps you could cut to the chase and let us all know when you plan to “trump” all of the facts presented you by simply citing The Protocols. You know, so we can prepare ourselves for that unexpected turn of events.
Indeed. Wheras pointing out that “Alex Jones admits ‘X’ is unlikely” is merely pointing out that a piece of meat is so rotten that even a starving dog won’t eat it.
Blanket denials that the U.S. government would do such a thing can fail to persuade, thanks to the reality of history. Add such lies as the Gulf of Tonkin, for one, that led to the deaths of millions, and it’s not hard to understand why conspiracy theories abound.
And how many of those resulted in the immediate deaths of three thousand people? Unlike the WONJCTs, I am not unaware of the facts of history.
Who knows? That’s the essence of secrecy.
Anyway, I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy advocate. I merely pointed out why such theories gain credence.