No, we can’t state that there is definitely no possibility that thermite was used to cut a column. However, and this is a big however, there is definitely no evidence that thermite was used to cut a column, and there are various reasons why it would be pretty impractical.
If there is no evidence that something took place, and the collapse of the various WTC buildings must be one of the most heavily documented and intensively studied events in the history of structural engineering, then there’s no reason to believe that that was in fact what happened.
Basically an unsupported hypothesis is not evidence. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is wrong, just that there’s no reason to think it’s right.
Absolutely. Likewise, we also cannot eliminate the possibility that the building fell because its support structures were being gnawed by robotic metal-eating termite analogues built and remotely controlled by the long-unseen but recently resurgent Mole Men of Silsby, California.
We would, however, be fucking stupid to argue in favor of that scenario.
I wrote something similar originally only with “invisible flying steel-eating rabbits” but decided it wouldn’t help for two reasons:
a. Ivan seems like an honest guy, he’s asking a legitimate question and using a really dismissive example won’t help my position much.
b. Unlike the rabbits or the metallo-nomming robotermites from Silsby, there is an actual substance called thermite which can in fact be used to cut steel.
I’m genuinely curious what would give you that impression? Have you not been following his behavior in this thread, or have you not really ever tried to have a discussion with a tinhatter before? Google Max Photon, the guy ivan mentioned upthread, for a glimpse into just how dishonest and deranged these people are. They’re far beyond the realm of honestly misinterpreting the evidence; they left that place years ago, if they were ever there at all.
And have you read any of Apollo20’s posts on the JREF? He certainly doesn’t strike me as a crack-pot with an agenda, although I’ll admit that Max is a little more difficult to handle.
Cisco and ivan astikov, (particularly), and several others of you, (generally):
back away from the personal observations and comments. It is not moving the thread forward in any way.
Everyone: let’s drop the references to how various statements or beliefs have to be “stupid” or “crazy” or whatver. It is quite sufficient for a successful debate to demonstrate that a position is in error without going further to make a denigrating comment about the holder(s) of such a view.
Ever watched the Louiseau team prepare for a demolition? Ever notice that they remove some supports entirely and weaken almost every other column in a building? They put carefully timed, meticulously computed charges in multiple locations? That it takes weeks of study and preparation and a crew of a dozen or more wearing orange vests, yellow hardhats and carrying walkie-talkies to do this? And these are the top experts in the world in this field, yet they sometimes get it wrong?
And you are suggesting that some unnamed crew with unknown experience and unknown financial support operated invisibly for weeks, laying miles of cable, cords and explosives, weakening support columns, communicating silently, using jackhammers to chip away at cement, cutting rebar with power tools, and no one on the office staff of 6000 employees who came and went every day noticed or questioned their activity or remembered about it afterwards?
I almost forgot: They left no evidence of their clandestine activity, either.
Well in the case of the Twin Towers there were numerous planned power outages, construction, and other things of this sort leading immediately up to 9/11. The staff there have talked about the noise. I’ll readily concede, however, that I couldn’t find any similar thing for WTC7. Nevertheless, this prep could have been done months, maybe years in advance. Unlike the Twin Towers which Silverstein aquired just months ahead of time, WTC7 was in his ownership from its construction. Perhaps the work was done on WTC7 very early on as a proof of concept.
I’m just speculating of course. It isn’t too fair for you to demand a complete, full theory of everything. Remember lots of things in science start with seeing there’s a principle at work, and then a whole secondary search begins for why. I’ll speculate about the hows and whys in this case, but this other theory is nowhere as firm as my belief that the collapse of WTC7 was not a plain fault and crumbling.
No kidding! An airplane was flown into WTC1 and when it collapsed a huge firey chunk of it hit WTC7. You still haven’t explained how your boogeymen made this happen.
In fact it’s very fair, since there is already a complete, full theory that is supported by facts, evidence, and thousands of eyewitnesses. If you’re trying to prove that something wildly different happened, it’s your job to present a viable competing theory.
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. It was THA JOOOOOS!
Exactly what I figured :rolleyes: Perfect mask to hide behind while spitting anti-semite rhetoric but you didn’t even bother hiding behind it very long. Disgusting.
It’s at this point an honest analysis of the issue would stop you. The only way you can keep your theory going after that “Nevertheless” is by making up new information you must know can’t possibly be proved. Demolition charges set up months in advance yet undiscovered by the maintenance staff of WTC7? Or were they in on it, too?
Perhaps, but do you have any evidence of that? That’s a pretty fantasic theory you got there, that the builder planned to destroy own his masterpiece for months and with careful advance planning involving likely dozens of people and millions of dollars, kept it a secret to this day. Did he buy their silence or kill all the witnesses? Odd that nobody spotted the bodies piling up.
Let’s start with some evidence first. Full, complete theory will have to wait. Got any?
With no evidence and just speculation, you have nothing but wishful thinking. That is not science, but fantasy.
With science, evidence is accumulated, evaluated and the hypothesis is strengthened. If not, the hypothesis must be discarded.
I’m sorry. I’m just going to retreat to saying what I started with, “all parts of the roof and the several dozen floors below it fell in synchrony without even a half second of skew… a miniscule amount of time which would be necessitated by any conceivable model of a domino effect a hundred or more yards in length. The NIST did not present a full, computer model of how this occured, and simply can’t.” Because that is where the firm ground is, and I don’t need to propose any suspect auxiliary theories. I just can’t know those things and my ignorance of them is not reason to disregard me. If questioned further, I’ll just meakly point at the billions in insurance Silverstein himself made, and of course the hundreds of billions of dollars made on the Iraq war that was built on 9/11’s back and the lies that follow. I do not know the details of how everything connects, but whatever the motivation was it’s in there somewhere.
That’s where the alien autopsies were being stored while Area 51 was under OMB audit.
The twin tower buildings effectively buckled; because of the framed tube construction of the buildings, a combination of localized failures could (and IMHO did) result in catastrophic structural failure. Remember that the buildings didn’t collapse immediately; they burned for tens of minutes before collapsing.
Next someone is going to start asking what happened to the “disappearing” aircraft that hit the Pentagon, and that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by the US Navy to eliminate the threat of French hockey player Michel Breistroff. And the madness continues. Those wacky Illuminati.
You’re confusing my quotes and Musicat’s, not that it much matters since he and I agree.
It’s far more plausible that you’re lying about being Jewish than hundreds (or thousands) or people are lying to cover a WTC7 demolition. Your sole evidence seems to consist of you thinking the collapse is a little funny-ish.