Gotta admit he has a good point there.
You forgot to mention the metal-eating elves.
They may be rare, but I have my moments. 
[quote=“RickJay, post:326, topic:547182”]
For the record: NIST was not running the furnace tests as a model. That would not have worked properly and could have been damaging for the furnace (large furnaces are not exactly common). They were running the tests to be certain that the original steel and fireproofing standards were accurate. Before they started anything they wanted to be certain that such figures, which were done decades ago, were actually accurate. All the tests were ended before serious damage was done purposely.
Truthers saw the test and assumed it was a complete fire simulation. So they misrepresented it ever since.
???
What, are you channeling the audience in page 7
Not fully understanding the subatomic level of gravity does not mean we don’t have a grasp on the all the macro aspects of it. So no, he does not have a “good point”.
Oh there are certainly ones who are much worse: the Space Beamers, mini-nukers, the holographic plane folks, the VicSim crowd, the Pentacon crowd, but whatever level you are at it still involves replacing faith in your distrust above the facts of science and engineering facts.
Re - post #344
Yes, but just because you can give a name to something and explain some of the effects associated with it, that doesn’t make it “fully understood” by any stretch. Or are you going to tell us that there are no gravitational mysteries left?
So, what are the equivalent grades of Derbunkerdom? You lot too must have your categories, or are you all perfectly rational and reasonable, and have all the facts in your favour through only trusting reliable sources?
Nice strawman in that last sentence.
Sorry bucko, but when it comes to everyday life, engineers and scientists have got gravity’s effects down.
So, what are the equivalent grades of Derbunkerdom? You lot too must have your categories, or are you all perfectly rational and reasonable, and have all the facts in your favour through only trusting reliable sources?
[/QUOTE]
Hey, you tell me. You are trying a desperate (and lazy) tu quoque to cover for the fact that you employ magical thinking.
I bow to your superior knowledge of Chick tracts.
On 18 June 2007, a steel-frame structure the same size as a single level of a WTC tower caught fire and collapsed in 45 minutes. Why couldn’t the same happen in the WTC? What would such a collapse do to the floor above? The floor below?
Look up what Danny Jowenko says about WTC 1 & 2 and get back to us.
To those who believe the OT without question, OK fine. Fire and damage caused by airplanes brought WTC 1&2 down. But, how do you explain WTC 7. No airplane hit that building, and photos show that there were no raging infernos. I know you will all say that the falling debris from the twin towers and the fire caused it to collapse.
However, we have seen buildings with severe structural damage caused by earthquakes, and with fires that were more intense than the ones in WTC 7. Remember Madrid 2005? None of them collapsed into their own footprint at near free fall speed, like a controlled demolition, an implosion. In fact, they fell over sideways, more or less intact, Madrid did not collapse into a small pile of rubble.
The fact is the damage to WTC 7 from the twins was confined to a corner of the building, and that being the case, should it not have, according to known physics, collapsed from that corner, asymmetrically and with most of the rest of the building still standing? Like the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building which had a bomb detonated directly in front of it and did not suffer a total collapse? By the way that building actually had to be imploded a month later to bring it down.
I see that the OT believers are trying an old tactic to shut down debate. Talking about holograms, no plane hitting the pentagon and switched airplanes, aliens. That is just an attempt to label anyone who doubts the OT as crazy, and their opinions too.
There are serious questions about 911 that have not been but need to be answered, and the more I really think about those questions, the harder it is for me to believe the OT. and i am not alone.
So I ask, how do you explain WTC 7?
The collapse did not “progress from east-to-west” on the footage that everyone is familiar with. Do you have other footage that shows it fell in an asymmetrical manner?
Even before WTC 7 collapsed, there were noted concerns that the fires within would cause it to collapse. It wasn’t some great surprise, as a sudden bombing of that inconsequential building would have been.
Do you have footage that shows it didn’t?
EDIT:
Actually, do you have ACTUAL footage of ANY of the buildings collapsing? I’m talking about real, unaltered footage. Not the CGI that everyone has seen. Without that, you have no proof that the buildings collapsed at all.
.
Oh, and in relation to that famous footage, at which end was this vulnerable interior column? Would it be to the left or the right of WTC7 as it was shown on tv?
I’m not an architect or an engineer, so I can’t comment on the technical details of the WTC7 collapse. However I’ve always wondered why it was so important to the secret masters that it did. Their goal was to create a false flag operation which would enrage the American public and allow them to push through the Iraq war and erode civil liberties, right? So how did the building 7 collapse further that? We already saw the towers collapse, with thousands of people dead. I think the public was as engraged as they were going to get.
Arguing the technical details cedes too much ground to the CT’s. The whole thing is absurd on its face.
The two tallest buildings in NY had just fallen down; of course there were concerns it might fall down too.
What I’d like you to try and imagine tho’ is, if the other 2 towers hadn’t been attacked, and a bomb of some kind had caused the damage and resulting fires, would a reasonable person have expected that building to come down the way it did?
coughBULLSHITcough
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
WTC did not fall into its own footprint, it did a lot of damage to nearby buildings and blocked off streets, inclding 30 West Broadway and the nearby Verizon building.
As for Madrid, it was a concrete core building with some attached steel framing that did collapse.
You are comparing two completely different buildings.
Unfought raging fires that conspiracy theorists pretend did not exist.
May as well be - both denying vast amounts of physical evidence, claiming conspiracies and political bias when people reject their theories, yet it’s surprisingly seductive to a good-sized segment of the population who will never give it up and can never conceive of giving it up.
I can imagine evidence that might convince me of young-earth creationism, and possibly even evidence that might convince of U.S. Government complicity in the attack. Can you conceive of evidence that would convince you the planes were the sole cause of the collapse? If you can, we can probably find it for you. If you can’t, you’re a true believer, and the effort is pointless. Even this analysis I’m writing is a waste of ti