sundin13 said:
Additionally, there was a lot more to the report stating that fires do explain the collapse of the building. As I said, NIST is a pretty big deal in the sciences, and with each of these points you make, you are just adding more moving parts. If NIST is "lying" that would mean that every one of the researchers as well as the people above them would have to have been in on this as well... The building's collapse was explained in detail by NIST, and explained by the unique method of support that was used in the building (explaining why one side collapsed first). I don't see why it is so difficult to believe that a building that had come under heavy damage from debris and was on fire would fall down, especially after the cause has been verified by prestigious scientific organizations. d. As I said before, there were obviously a lot of loud noises and confusion occuring at the time these buildings collapsed, but if Building 7 was taken down by explosives, it would be indisputable. Additionally, it makes no logical sense to blow up Building 7 and then brush it under the rug when the damage was obviously already done. Here is another section of the NIST report: For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building. and:
17. An emergency responder caught in WTC 7 between the 6th and 8th floors said he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion? The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. |
"Like they said, the smallest explosive capable of doing that sort of damage would be heard easily within a very large radius. That didn't happen."
so uh what's going on here?
are you so determined to keep deluding yourself that you're at the point where you're just disregarding evidence now?
i'll repeat once more there are several reports of people claiming they heard explosives
that is fact
"The building's collapse was explained in detail by NIST, and explained by the unique method of support that was used in the building (explaining why one side collapsed first)"
one side did not collapse first it can be clearly seen in any film of the event that the middle fails first then the whole building falls almost uniformly downward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI
jesus christ its right there on film man
"there were obviously a lot of loud noises and confusion occuring at the time these buildings collapsed, but if Building 7 was taken down by explosives, it would be indisputable. "
the original premise was that witnesses were interviewed and asked if they heard explosions, meaning that with that said we are relying on the testimony of witnesses so either you trust what they said about hearing explosions or you do not use that in an investigation, its that simple
for many it is indisputable because as they said they witnessed what happened and heard explosions and proceeded to tell other people what they experienced
"The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building."
how was that determined?
sound level is a measurable effect which is determined by instrumentation if you're using scientific analysis
to determine an adequate sound level would require instrumentation used at the event to give measurements
it should be obvious to anyone that you cannot apply that to this situation