I wanna know how ‘pyrocastic flow’ applies to anything besides volcanos!
The real answer is that those cars were towed there after the days events.
Are they kidding? Or does this site purport that vehicles were “toasted” on FDR Drive? And they are in direct proximity to “untoasted” cars, as well as separated by distance from the WTC itself, proving some idiotic claim of paradox or other?
Are they too stupid to realize that the toasted cars were towed there from WTC to get them out of the way?
Sheesh. Such boggles the mind. Oh, yeah-- these crackpots don’t have minds, do they?
You type faster than I!!
Remember that nothing is done for purposes that are not sinister in Conspiracy Theorist land.
I think they just want there to be a conspiracy so badly that they don’t want to try to come up with an alternative explanation, however obvious that explanation may seem to others.
So, what evil purpose is served by your typing speed?
He obviously uses it to frustrate my otherwise uniquely insightful efforts.
Conspiracy! Conspiracy!
Darn it, you guys, I wanted the LOONY to answer.
Clearly you’re all conspiring to keep me from having any fun.
It would have worked, too - if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
Regards,
Shodan
I just came across this thread, and would like to add a couple of things:
Black smoke does not mean oxygen-starved fires:
A “squib” is not the term for the explosives that bring buildings down. A squib is a blasting cap, basically a large firecracker.
The supposed “squibs” on the top corner of WTC7, which appear after it starts falling, are apparently not smoke, because they don’t disperse, but fall right along with the building. They are something solid, most likely windows blown out by the air pressure in the collapsing building.
DanBlather was taken to task for bringing up Jones’s Mormonism as evidence of his credulity. While I agree that this is not a fair point, what is more relevant is that Jones is not your run-of-the-mill Mormon, but has published a paper titled Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ’s Visit in Ancient America.
From http://tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/News_Item.2006-09-08.3403 :
This I think is a valid point to indicate his level of credulity.
Here is that same controlled demolition expert analyzing WTC 1 and 2.
It is true that WTC 7 actually does resemble a controlled demolition, because it collapses from the bottom, in the characteristic way of the whole building seeming to fall into a hole. Of course, all this means is that WTC failed from the bottom up. But this should not be exactly suprising, since the bottom floors of a skyscraper have to support the most weight they are the most vulnerable and most likely to collapse.
But the 1 and 2 towers both clearly collapse from the top down, each floor collapsing onto the lower one in turn. Absolutely different than a demolition. Fact is, the towers started collapsing from where the planes hit. Now, perhaps they wired the site of the crash with explosives, set those off, and set off explosives below in a chain, just as the upper floor hit. But that makes no sense! How do you keep the fires from destroying your detonators? How do you keep the crash from breaking the wires you need to send the signal to detonate? How do you keep the fire from cooking your explosives?
If you want to demolish the towers you set off explosives at the base. That didn’t happen.
Crap, I forget my main point. Wow, WTC 7 kind of resembles a controlled demolition. Which proves…WHAT? That, sure, WTC 1 and WTC 2 were demolished by crashing hijacked jet planes into them, but WTC 7 was wired for demolition? Excuse me? The main attack was just a cover to destroy WTC 7? Because there was a CIA office there?
Y’know, if you’re a secret cabal that wants to get rid of evidence at a CIA office, you send guys wearing dark suits, and they flash their genuine yet fake ID at the door, and the start loading the evidence into crates, and the crates go into trucks, and they drive off into the night and you never hear from them ever again.
I think at this point it becomes clear that a real estate developer was behind it all.
One thing is for sure, we are being lied to and scientific explanations tend to prove that the WTC towers shouldn’t have collapsed because of the hits they sustained…
I hereby delcare Mort Gage to be among the top ten new Dopers of 2007!
As has been previously noted (many, many, MANY times) before, WTC1/2 did not simply fall down from the airplane impacts. Please go back and actually read all four pages of this thread for explanations, discussions and links regarding the actual collapse mechanisms.
Once you have done this, if you’ve got something that has not already been thoroughly covered (many, many, MANY times) before, please link to the scientific articles that prove that damage from the impact plus subsequent raging infernos was not the cause of collapse. If by “proof” you mean that it is your judgement, based on the known facts, then please state what your qualifications are (such as your background in structural engineering) for making such a call.
That one thing is most assuredly not for sure.
One thing is for sure and that there are a lot of ignoramouses out there who don’t know the first thing about structural engineering, controlled demolitions, or scientific method and who apparently believe in a lot of bullshit.