Just went back and looked at the old quote I posted to prove that I had included the bit about audio recording since the begining:
"Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse."
Yup, its there...you even specifically picked it out and put that part in your response but you still somehow missed it.
"let us be specific here what i called the report out on was the part that it stated that no witnesses present heard explosions"
I've already discussed this...
"ok that is the conclusion of NIST and they may very well be right on this point, that does not mean however that the official story is correct i hope you understand that
if NIST is correct then so be it the witnesses are wrong
as i mentioned before various engineers have concluded that a variety of methods could have been used here but they are all unified in the claim that the official story is worthless tripe"
NIST provided the best conclusion based on the presented evidence. Do some people disagree? Of course, theres going to be disagreements with something as large as this. is the entire scientific community unified against NIST? No...that is ridiculous. There are some very vocal people who really like to accuse the government of killing thousands of their own people and thats about it. Some of them may be intelligent people, but they don't have the evidence they need to prove their points. Honestly, I haven't even been able to find any scholarly articles making any of these claims. I would love for you to post some though...
"the problem with this claim is that claiming that a mere office fire can melt all of the structural steel in a building in such a way that all of the support throughtout the building fails simultaneously is not only illogical but also unscientific"
You obviously haven't been reading the things I've been posting. The factor that caused the structural weakening was the thermal expansion, propagated by the way the support system was designed.
Additionally, the collapse was not simultaneous:
"Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed."
As you can see, the method of collapse is explained in detail in the NIST report...
"should that not have been impossible considering the heat that would have been needed to destroy all of the structural steel throughout the building"
Once again, thermal expansion was the main factor of the collapse, not the melting of beams:
"Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees Celsius (570 degrees Fahrenheit), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—which caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees Celsius (where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat."
"also why is there no visual evidence of flames from the outside?"
Says who?
"no i didn't say anything like that"
I think you are misunderstanding me. You and others have pointed out a lot of moving parts to this conspiracy. I am not talking about the american people, I'm talking about those parts such as (PS: Feel free to ignore any involving the illuminati, its still a lot of people):
-Government Officials
-Members of Pop Culture (the people who spread the illuminati
-The families of everyone aboard the crashed planes
-The media (how else would they be able to report things before they happen)
-Large chunks of the scientific community
-etc...
"what i was debating is that the official sotry is garbage"
Do I think that we know the whole truth? No. Do I think that that is evidence that this was an inside job? Nope.
The "official story" is blurry in places and vague in others and feel free to argue some small points of contention, but once again, you are making far too large of a leap with the evidence you have been given...
"you see the thing is that the first step to change can only be education"
Teach people how to think critically, don't teach people how to think conspiratorily. Theres a difference between opening your mind to a broader truth and closing your mind on a radical belief. Conspiracy theories such as these are not and never will be a way to move forward...
| o_O.Q said: you're doing the same thing sundini was doing assuming that you know what is logical about this situation assuming that the people who did this had no reason to destroy the other buildings also |
So you are saying "think critically, but you aren't allowed to use logic!"
